The  Singular 


Reorganization  of  the 


American  Branch 


Copley  Winslow,  D.D.,  D.C.L,  LL.D 


0t  ttw 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Presented  b7^Vo^.!5oVvvv3)r2D^\fv 


Division 
Section  • 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/truthaboutegypteOOwins 


Sarony,  New  York. 


THE  LATE  AMELIA  B.  EDWARDS,  Ph.D.,  L.H.D  , LL  D 
Chief  founder  of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund 


The  Truth  about  th%..~;";: 


Egypt  Exploration  Fund 


THE  SINGULAR  REORGANIZATION  OF  THE  AMERICAN 
BRANCH— THE  WORK  ACCOMPLISHED— MONU- 
MENTAL OBJECTS  FOR  BOSTON— REQUEST 
FROM  THE  LOCAL  SECRETARIES  TO 
LONDON  — A PERSONAL  SKETCH, 

ETC.,  Etc.,  INCLUDING  THREE 
PORTRAITS,  ETC. 


T3y 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D.,  Ph.D. 


Founder  of  the  American  Branch 


Boston : 1903 


DEDICATED  TO  THE  MEMORY  OF 

Amelia  B.  Edwards,  LL.D.,  R.  Stuart  Poole,  LL.D., 
Erasmus  Wilson,  LL.D. 


Founders  of  the  Society 


PREFATORY. 


Details  are  essential  in  this  narrative  which  should  be  read  from 
first  to  last  in  order  to  comprehend  an  evolution  of  ambition  and  diplo- 
macy without  precedent,  I am  sure,  in  the  history  of  learned  societies. 

The  names  of  100  or  more  persons  appear  in  this  monograph,  and 
the  representative  character  of  subscribers,  whose  views  are  given,  is 
seen  in  the  fact  that  among  them  is  a great  historian,  a noted  editor , 
a capitalist  associated  with  a vast  trust,  the  most  finished  scholar  of 
our  oldest  university,  and  the  head  of  the  largest  parish  in  Am  erica. 

Reference,  also,  is  made  to  many  newspapers  and  journals;  the 
views  of  several  editors  are  stated. 

The  portraits  of  my  close  associates,  Amelia  B.  Edwards  and  R. 
Stuart  Poole,  will  be  welcomed  by  my  readers.  Had  they  been 
living,  the  disgraceful  condition  of  affairs  could  not  have  occurred. 

I have  only  a very  incomplete  list  of  American  subscribers’  ad- 
dresses, and  none  of  the  English.  I will  mail,  free  of  cost,  this  mono- 
graph to  such  addresses  furnished  me. 

Sir  John  Fowler,  predecessor  of  the  present  President  of  the  Fund, 
declared  officially  that  “in  any  reorganization  of  the  American  Branch 
the  approval  of  American  subscribers  is  essential.”  The  best  English 
and  American  sentiment  cannot  approve  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
American  Branch  has  been  reorganized.  Nor  can  it  approve  of  the 
course  pursued  by  those  controlling  the  London  Committee  towards 
the  Boston  Office,  over  whose  work  I was  placed  in  “general  control.” 

The  moral  lesson  from  our  “strange  but  true  ” story  is  this:  that 
“ diplomacy  ” has  no  proper  place  in  the  administration  of  a society 
like  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund,  and  that  those  who  practice  the  art 
should  no  longer  direct  its  Committee.  Many  of  the  best  subscribers 
condemn  the  action  in  London,  and,  as  will  appear,  a well-known 
scholar  puts  this  fitting  question  to  the  new  Committee,  “Can  you 
expect  to  command  the  confidence  and  further  efforts  of  subscribers 
under  such  circumstances  ? ” 


Boston,  July  1,  1903. 


W.  C.  W. 


CONTENTS, 


PART  I. 

PAGE 

Statement  of  President  Evans 12 

Opinions  of  Subscribers  and  Local  Secretaries  ...  19 

Cause  of  the  Troubles 27 

Some  Essential  History 30 

What  Caused  the  Split 33 

PART  II. 

Duplicity  Appears 40 

Cotton  in  Boston 42 

Had  Cotton  Played  a Double  Part  ? 45 

A Few  Occurrences 49 

Unpleasant  Discoveries 53 

Efforts  to  Put  Things  Right 58 

How  Cotton  and  Foster  Abetted  the  Secretary  ...  63 

PART  III. 

R.  Stuart  Poole,  LL.D.,  (with  portrait) 77 

Singular  Distribution  of  Ushabtis 82 

Recognition  of  My  Services  89 

Press  Notices 90 

How  to  Become  a Member  of  the  London  Committee  . . 91 

Printing  Secretly  Done 99 

A Singular  Consultation 101 

Cotton  is  King 104 

PART  IV. 

The  Outbreak 109 

The  Storm  115 

My  Report  to  London 125 

The  Action  of  the  Committee 133 

PART  V. 

The  Boston  Committee  140 

Legality  of  the  New  Committee 143 

The  Work  Accomplished  — a Resume 147 

Monumental  Objects  for  Boston 153 

Conclusions 160 

REQUEST  OF  LOCAL  SECRETARIES  . . , 169 

SKETCH  OF  WILLIAM  C.  WINSLOW  (with  portrait)  ...  174 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT  THE  EGYPT 
EXPLORATION  FUND. 


To  the  Subscribers  and  Friends  of  the 

American  Branch  of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund: 

As  founder  of  this  Branch,  in  1883,  its  late  Hon’y  Sec- 
retary and  Vice  President  for  the  United  States,  I am  bound 
to  heed  the  urgent  requests  of  many  representative  sub- 
scribers that  the  Truth  about  the  radical  and  arbitrary  reor- 
ganization of  the  administration  of  this  Branch  be  stated, 
together  with  the  causes  leading  up  to  it.  To  the  corps 
of  eighty  or  ninety  local  Secretaries,  many  of  whom  have 
labored  to  promote  the  Society’s  cause,  to  many  subscribers 
who  have  generously  responded  to  my  appeals  and  letters, 
and  to  the  press  who  have  for  many  years  kindly  commended 
my  efforts  to  win  support,  to  secure  knowledge  of  the  far 
past  and  to  enrich  our  museums,  to  these  in  particular  I 
owe  the  duty  of  revealing  the  Truth. 

The  publication  this  spring  in  the  Annual  Report  of  the 
remarks  appended  by  President  Evans  to  his  address  at  the 
annual  meeting,  last  November,  leaves  me  no  option.  I 
must  and  do  now  state  the  Truth  about  the  Egypt 
Exploration  Fund,  respecting  this  American  Branch,  to  the 
best  of  my  knowledge;  and  resting  upon  evidence,  mostly 
written  and  largely  from  official  documents. 

Consider  these  facts  or  circumstances:  1.  That  one  per- 
son, not  a subscriber,  was  empowered  by  the  London  Comm, 
to  form  a Committee,  now  named  in  its  circulars  as  “The 
Committee  for  the  United  States  of  America.”  The  Lon- 
don Committee  is  elected  by  the  subscribers  at  an  annual 


8 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


meeting.  It  is  not  a self-perpetuating  corporate  body. 
Yet,  without  consulting  the  local  Secretaries  and  subscribers, 
it  delegates  authority  (if  it  possessed  such  authority)  to  a 
non-subscriber  to  organize  a Committee  which  shall  rule 
over  and  direct  the  affairs  of  the  American  Branch, — in  other 
words,  the  affairs  of  half  of  the  total  number  of  subscribers, 
who  give  one  half  of  the  entire  money  for  the  Fund’s  support  . 
What  if  the  Committee  had  treated  subscribers  in  Scotland’ 
or  Ireland,  or  Wales,  or  in  North  or  South  England,  the  same 
way  by  requesting  some  one  (a  non-subscriber  ?)  in  each  sec- 
tion to  get  up  a Committee  for  that  section?  That  we  are 
three  thousand  miles  away,  a different  nation,  does  not 
lessen  the  political  error.  The  affinity  of  scholarly  aims  and 
ties  should  have  saved  so  grave  a mistake.  Among  like 
pledges  is  that  of  Sir  E.  M.  Thompson,  chairman  at  an  annual 
meeting,  when  the  American  Branch  was  discussed:  "The 
London  Committee,  ever  anxious  that  the  American  Branch 
should  be  administered  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of 
American  subscribers,”  etc.  (Annual  Report,  1897,  p.  8.) 
He  made  this  remark  relative  to  a committee  for  the  U.  S.  A. 
The  Committee  now  existing  in  Boston  is  not  national  or 
representative  — not  even  a Boston  representative  com- 
mittee. Its  correct  designation  would  be  “The  Robinson 
Committee  of  the  E.  E.  Fund  in  Boston.”  One  of  this  Com- 
mittee, a lawyer,  had  stated  his  opinion  in  writing  respecting 
the  formation  of  an  American  Committee  at  an  earlier  date: 
“I  am  quite  clear  that  no  persons  not  subscribers  were  en- 
titled in  any  way  to  represent  the  subscribers,  nor  can  I see 
how  anything  affecting  the  organization  could  have  been 
properly  done  without  consulting  all  the  subscribers  in  this 
country.”  Still  another  member  of  the  new  Committee, 
also  a lawyer,  signed  a request,  in  1897,  that  the  London 
Committee  withdraw  its  appointment  of  an  American  Com- 
mittee, “pending  an  agreement  that  shall  be  mutually  satis- 
factory between  the  London  Committee  and  our  subscrib- 
ers.” The  note  written  by  his  sister,  endorsing  his  request, 
characterizes  the  doings  as  “very  extraordinary  and  most 
unwarrantable,”  and  for  herself  and  brother  remarks:  “I 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


9 


enclose  the  paper  forwarded,  which  Mr.  Davis  and  I have 
signed.  It  will  at  least  be  of  use  in  assuring  you  of  our  con- 
victions in  the  matter.”  I am  unwilling  to  believe  that  to 
put  honorable  men  upon  a Committee  alters  their  legal 
views  and  convictions.  Yet,  can  Mr.  Lothrop  explain  him- 
self? Mr.  Davis  did  not  attend  a meeting  of  the  new  Com- 
mittee and  went  abroad. 

2.  That  the  methods  employed  to  form  this  new  Com- 
mittee are  regarded  by  many  subscribers  as  secretive,  and 
unfitting  for  a learned  soc’y  whose  aim  is  to  dig  up  and  not 
to  bury  truth. 

3.  That  the  request  signed  by  about  80  local  Secretaries 
(representing  the  entire  American  Branch  in  various  parts 
of  the  land)  was  simply  shelved  by  the  London  Committee. 

4.  That  circulars  put  out  by  the  new  Comm'ttee  ignored 
the  labors  of  the  founder,  the  local  Secretaries  and  other 
members,  to  which  the  Soc’y  in  America  owes  its  existence. 

5.  That  the  many  earnest  and  respectful  inquiries  ad- 
dressed to  the  London  or  Boston  Committee,  or  their  officers, 
from  local  Secretaries  and  subscribers  of  representative 
character  or  distinction,  have  been  answered  vaguely,  or 
abruptly,  or  in  some  unsatisfactory  manner.  I give  one  in- 
stance, that  of  the  reply  to  President  Wm.  F.  Warren  of 
Boston  University,  who  wrote  to  President  Evans  respecting 
myself:  “It  is  with  surprise  that  I learn  of  the  apparently 
unceremonious  removal  of  our  friend  Rev.  Dr.  William  C. 
Winslow  from  the  office  of  American  Vice  Pres’t  of  the  E.  E. 
Fund.  In  view  of  the  possible  effect  of  this  action  upon 
the  American  subscribers  to  the  Fund,  I write  to  inquire 
the  circumstances  and  the  reasons  in  view  of  which  the 
above  mentioned  action  was  taken.” 

Dr.  Warren  kindly  allowed  me  also  to  read  the  reply  from 
Evans,  the  former  writing  to  me,  “ It  throws  little  light  upon 
the  situation.”  The  reply  simply  gave  as  “the  reasons,”  that 
“whatever  has  been  done  was  thought  to  be  in  the  best 
interests  of  the  Fund.” 

Consider  facts  like  the  above,  and  no  one  need  wonder 
that  astonishment,  indignation,  disapproval,  one  or  two  or 


10 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


all,  exist  to-day  throughout  the  Branch.  Quite  a number 
of  subscribers  know  nothing  of  the  facts  stated  — I have  not 
their  addresses  * A comparatively  small  number  only  know 
even  but  a portion  of  the  facts  forming  this  strange  but 
true  narrative. 

The  statements  of  President  Evans  respecting  the  forma- 
tion of  a Boston  Committee  are  absolutely  misleading,  are 
personally  insinuating,  whatever  his  intentions  may  have 
been.  I cannot  fathom,  much  less  deal  with,  his  intentions. 
A Committee  formed  as  was  the  Robinson  Comm,  needed 
bolstering  up.  It  was  necessary  to  counteract  my  prestige, 
and  to  influence  subscribers  to  renew  subscriptions.  My 
prestige;  for,  in  1897,  Sir  John  Fowler  wrote  to  the  Editor 
of  Biblia:  “Not  a single  member  of  the  London  Comm, 
would  wish  that  any  arrangement  should  be  made  in  America 
which  had  not  Dr.  Winslow’s  entire  approval.” 

A subscriber  of  long  standing  in  New  York,  Miss  Lowrey, 
wrote  to  me:  “You  had  somewhat  prepared  me  for  Presi- 
dent Evans’s  reference  to  the  trouble,  but  I was  more  than 
surprised  to  read  his  actual  words.”  His  remarks  are  alien 
to  presidential  addresses  before  learned  societies,  and  unique 
in  the  Fund.  When  the  Boston  Comm,  retired  in  1897,  after 
a brief  reign,  Mr.  J.  S.  Cotton,  Hon’y  Sec’y,  wrote  to  me: 
“Sir  E.  M.  Thompson  (presiding  at  the  annual  meeting) 
touched  upon  it  as  lightly  as  possible.  ...  It  has  always 
been  our  policy  to  avoid  all  reference  to  personal  questions.” 
(Italics  mine.)  Did  Cotton  persuade  the  venerable  Presi- 
dent to  touch  upon  the  present  trouble  as  heavily  as  pos- 
sible ? His  own  customary  report  in  the  last  Annual  Report 
does  not  appear. 

An  ex-Vice  Chancellor  of  a university,  a doctor  of  divinity 
and  civil  laws,  etc.,  of  the  Church  of  England,  writes  privately 
to  me : “ It  would  be  a satisfaction,  as  it  seems  to  me,  if  you 
were  to  reveal  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  the 
slur  that  has  been  cast  on  you.  ...  I was  surprised  that 

* Only  a very  incomplete  list  of  addresses  is  in  my  hands.  Will  subscribers 
aid  me  to  place  this  brochure  in  the  hands  of  all  subscribers?  A postal  card 
with  address  is  sufficient. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


11 


you,  a moving  spirit  in  the  Egypt  Exploration  Soc’y,  should 
receive  such  scurvy  treatment.” 

An  eminent  English  writer  in  a letter  to  an  American  cor- 
respondent which  I have  just  been  permitted  to  read,  pithily 
remarks:  “The  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  Committee  were 
asses  to  treat  Winslow  so.”  I am  absolutely  sure  that  the 
treatment  of  the  local  secretaries  and  subscribers  in  America 
by  those  who  now  control  that  Committee  cannot  meet  with 
the  approval  of  many  of  the  best  writers  and  scholars  in 
England,  and  of  the  editors  who  conduct  the  leading  jour- 
nals there. 

I now  proceed  to  treat  topics  in  order  as  scheduled  in  the 
Contents.  Titles  and  prefixes  will  usually  not  accompany 
personal  names  after  their  first  mention,  so  as  to  save  space. 
Many  abbreviations  will  occur. 


12 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


PART  I. 

STATEfTENT  OF  PRESIDENT  EVANS. 

“In  former  days  there  existed  in  Boston,  though  for  a 
limited  period,  a well-organized  Committee.  . . . This  Com- 
mittee resigned,  and  only  the  Treasurer  and  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent, who  afterwards  became  the  Honorary  Secretary  of 
the  Fund  in  the  United  States  of  America,  remained.  These 
two,  aided  by  a paid  Secretary,  constituted  what  was  known 
as  the  Boston  Office.  Of  late,  however,  there  has  been  so 
much  friction  in  the  office  that,  in  the  interests  of  the  Fund, 
the  London  Committee  felt  bound  to  intervene.  They 
decided  to  relieve  Dr.  Winslow  from  the  duties  of  Vice- 
President  and  Honorary  Secretary,  and  to  dispense  with 

the  services  of  the  paid  Secretary,  Mrs.  B , the  Honorary 

Treasurer,  Mr.  Foster,  most  obligingly  consenting  to  remain 
in  charge. 

“ A visit  to  Boston  was  kindly  made  by  Major  Cassatt,  an 
American  member  of  the  London  Committee,  and  the  inde- 
pendent supporters  of  the  Fund  in  Boston  now  having  a 
free  hand  have  constituted  a local  Committee,  under'  whose 
charge  we  may  hope  that  the  affairs  of  the  Fund  in  Boston 
will  prosper,  and  that  the  office  in  that  city  will  be  regarded, 
as  heretofore,  as  the  head-quarters  of  the  Fund  in  the  United 
States.  . . . 

“It  is  of  course  to  be  regretted  that  there  should  be  even 
the  slightest  appearance  of  treating  one  who  has  rendered 
such  long  and  valuable  services  to  the  Fund  as  Dr.  Winslow 
with  harshness  or  even  discourtesy.  Matters  had,  however, 
unfortunately  come  to  such  a pass  that  strong  measures  were 
necessary,  and  it  will  remain  for  the  Boston  Committee  to  con- 
sider what  steps  are  now  to  be  taken  that  will  most  conduce 
to  the  advantage  of  our  Exploration  Fund  in  America.” 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


13 


Let  me  consider  some  of  these  statements.  1.  That  owing 
to  the  “friction”  in  the  Boston  Office,  the  Comm,  “decided 
to  relieve  Dr.  Winslow  from  the  duties  of  V.  P.  and  Hon’y 
Sec’y.”  What  are  the  facts? 

In  April,  1902,  the  London  Comm.,  “cognizant  for  some 
time  past  of  the  friction  between  the  officers  representing 
the  Fund  at  Boston,”  considered  reorganization  of  the  Bos- 
ton Office  necessary.  They  recommended  the  formation  of 
a Committee,  and,  owing  to  “the  want  of  cooperation”  be- 
tween the  Hon.  Sec’y  and  Hon.  Treas.,  that  a third  party 
undertake  that  duty.  The  Comm,  proceeded  to  pass  the 
resolutions:  That  Mr.  Robinson  of  the  Boston  Museum  of 
Fine  Arts  be  asked  to  form  such  a Comm.;  that  to  facilitate 
matters  the  appointments  of  the  Hon.  Sec’y  and  Sec’y  cease 
at  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  (July  31);  “that  these  resolu- 
tions (of  reorganization)  shall  in  no  way  affect  the  Rev. 
W.  C.  Winslow’s  position  as  Vice-President  of  the  Fund.” 
The  serious  error  of  Evans  that  owing  to  “friction”  I was 
relieved  from  my  position  as  V.  P.  and  Hon.  Sec’y  is  appar- 
ent. His  words  convey  clearly  the  idea  that  owing  to  fric- 
tion the  Comm.,  in  reorganizing  the  Boston  Office,  consisting 
only  of  Hon.  Sec’y,  Hon.  Treas.,  Sec’y,  went  still  further, 
and  removed  me  as  V.  P.  That  is,  that  owing  to  the  friction 
my  entire  connection  with  the  Fund  was  severed.  The 
moral  effect  of  so  sweeping  a statement  by  Evans  added  to 
his  closing  statement  “that  strong  measures  were  neces- 
sary,” do  indeed  mislead  his  readers,  and  are  a “slur”  upon 
myself. 

The  Comm,  unanimously  voted  that  my  quasi  honorary 
position  should  be  intact.  It  was  an  act  of  supererogation; 
but  their  action  was  meant  to  clinch  that  position  for  me.* 
Mr.  H.  A.  Grueber,  Hon.  Treas.,  the  official  longest  in  serv- 
ice, better  acquainted  than  any  other  man  with  the  inside 
workings  of  the  Fund  and  the  labors  of  its  members,  wrote 
to  me  of  the  meeting:  “After  a very  careful  consideration 
of  the  present  condition  of  things,  and  after  hearing  Major 
Cassatt  s report,  the  Comm,  was  of  opinion  that  no  other 

* Otherwise  their  action  was  hypocrisy,  or  a mere  pretence. 


14 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


course  was  open  but  to  try  and  effect  a complete  reorganiza- 
tion, and  to  propose  a Comm,  of  management.  ...  I can 
assure  you  that  the  Comm,  fully  realized  their  debt  of 
gratitude  to  you  for  your  untiring  services  of  so  many  years’ 
standing.” 

2.  That  “independent  supporters  of  the  Fund  in  Boston 
constituted”  the  new  Comm,  there.  Will  Evans  name 
these  “independent  supporters,”  or  subscribers,  who  organ- 
ized this  Committee?  Robinson  alone  was  asked  to  per- 
form this  function.  Why  does  Evans  omit  to  give  him  the 
credit?  Even  he  was  not  an  “independent  supporter”  or 
subscriber.  Of  his  Committee  of  seven  he  selected  three 
for  it  who  were  not  subscribers,  and  one  who  had  recently 
become  a subscriber;  and  three  of  the  seven  were  connected 
with  the  museum.  Yet,  all  the  English  subscribers,  many 
Americans,  reading  only  what  Evans  says  upon  the  subject, 
will  conclude  that  the  Boston  Committee  was  formed  by 
subscribers  in  that  liberty-loving  city. 

3.  That  Mr.  Foster  most  obligingly  consented  to  remain 
in  charge.  Evans  appears  intentionally  to  have  omitted 
the  fact  that  when,  at  the  meeting  in  May,  it  was  voted  to 
cancel  my  V.  P.,  it  was  voted  that  Foster’s  office  should 
cease  at  the  organization  of  a Comm.  Suppressio  veri. 

4.  That  an  American  member  of  the  London  Comm,  came 
to  Boston,  etc.  A newly-appointed  member,  residing  in 
London,  was  to  visit  his  family  at  Christmas  in  Philadelphia, 
and  he  came  to  Boston  to  visit  friends  and  inquire  into  Fund 
affairs.  The  statement  of  Evans  makes  my  removal  appear 
to  precede  that  visit.  Whereas  my  removal  as  Hon.  Sec’y, 
and  retention  as  V.  P.,  were  resolved  “after  hearing  Major 
Cassatt’s  report”  of  his  “visit  to  Boston.” 

5.  That  “only  the  Treasurer  and  Vice  Pres’t  remained,” 
etc.  The  treasurer  did  not  remain;  for  he,  Mr.  Lane, 
resigned.  The  V.  P.  was  not  a part  of  that  “Boston  Com- 
mittee.” 

6.  That  the  “Vice  President,  who  afterwards  became  the 
Hon.  Sec’y  of  the  Fund,”  etc.  I had  been  Hon.  Sec’y  from 
1887  till  last  summer,  except  during  six  months  in  1897. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


15 


7.  That  “these  two,  aided  by  a paid  Sec’y,  constituted 
what  was  known  as  the  Boston  Office.”  The  official  ap- 
pointment of  Oct.,  1897,  reads:  “The  Hon.  Sec’y,  the  Hon. 
Treas.,  and  Sec’y  shall  together  constitute  the  Boston  Office.” 
However  inferior  the  position  of  the  Sec’y,  she  constituted 
a part  of  the  Boston  Office.  Nor  was  she  subject  to  the 
“general  control”  of  the  Hon.  Treas.;  nor  was  the  office 
under  his  “general  control.”  But  she  was  appointed  to 
perform  her  routine  work  “subject  to  the  general  control 
of  the  Hon.  Sec’y”;  and  the  latter  was  appointed  to  “exer- 
cise a general  control  over  the  work  of  the  office  in  Boston.” 
The  friction,  upon  which  Evans  lays  stress,  becomes  another 
thing  in  the  light  of  a truthful  definition  of  my  authority. 

8.  That  “ the  London  Committee  felt  bound  to  intervene,  ” 

is  just  half  the  truth.  My  official  letter  of  Feb.,  1902, 
to  the  Comm,  called  for  a halt  and  a change;  and  stated 
that  my  authority  must  be  upheld  by  the  Comm.  I sug- 
gested that  there  be  a truly  representative  Committee,  and 
named  a number  of  subscribers  in  Boston  and  New  York 
who  could  form  a nucleus  to  that  end.  I had  consulted 
probably  with  50  subscribers,  many  of  them  local  Secre- 
taries. Some  25  representative  subscribers,  of  whom  17 
were  local  Secretaries,  individually  addressed  the  London 
Comm,  or  its  officials  upon  what  Evans  calls  “friction.” 
Henry  Phipps,  Esq.,  late  of  the  Carnegie  Steel  Trust,  wrote 
to  me  when  I informed  him  how  my  official  position  was 
a farce,  and  I might  resign:  “Do  not  be  forced  to  resign. 
I know  I would  stop  my  donations  to  the  objects  which  you 
have  so  long  and  ably  worked  for,”  etc.  To  the  Comm,  he 
wrote:  “As  a friend  of  the  Fund,  and  a local  honorary 
Sec’y,  I wish  to  add  my  strongest  endorsement  of  Dr.  Wins- 
low, and  I much  regret  the  annoyance  caused  him  by . 

Last  spring  I sent  an  extra  8250  in  response  to  Dr.  Wins- 
low’s appeal.  To  any  business  man  it  is  clear  that  Dr.  W. 
should  have  power  to  displace  and  appoint  any  assistant 
that  he  sees  fit.”  Others  writing  to  London  were  Prof. 
C.  M.  Tyler  of  Cornell,  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander  McKenzie  of 
Cambridge,  Gen.  C.  W.  Darling  of  Utica,  Rev.  Dr.  Zimmer- 


16 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


man  of  Syracuse,  Archdeacon  Chambre  of  Lowell,  Pres’t 
Morton  of  the  Stevens  Polytechnic  Institute,  R.  B.  Knox, 
the  Duluth  banker,  Willis  Boyd  Allen,  the  author,  Boston, 
Rev.  Dr.  John  Wright  of  St.  Paul,  William  G.  Johnston,  Esq., 
of  Watertown,  N.  Y.,  Miss  Sybil  Carter,  the  revered  deacon- 
ess, Mrs.  Johnson,  wife  of  Rev.  Dr.  Herrick  Johnson  of  Chi- 
cago, Archdeacon  Williams  of  Washington,  Mr.  James  T. 
Dennis  of  Johns  Hopkins,  and  Prof.  W.  K.  Beecher  of  Auburn 
Theol.  Sem’y.  Last,  but  not  least,  I name  Rev.  Dr.  James 
Carter  of  Williamsport,  Pa.,  and  Very  Rev.  E.  A.  Hoffman, 
D.D.,  etc.,  head  of  the  General  Theol.  Sem’y  of  the  Episcopal 
Church.  Want  of  space  forbids  extracts.  Dr.  Beecher 
wrote  to  me:  “If  the  evidence  you  have  sent  on  does  not 
accomplish  the  purpose,  I do  not  see  what  will  accomplish  it.” 
Dean  Hoffman  shall  be  quoted,  since  Evans  pays  him  just 
tribute.  He  wrote  to  me  on  Nov.  15,  1901:  “I  hope  when 
these  facts  are  made  known  to  the  people  in  London,  they 
will  act  promptly  and  definitely  about  the  Boston  Office. 
Things  cannot  go  on  as  they  are.”  He  said  that  he  had 
written  “a  very  strong  letter”  to  Evans,  who  replied  in 
just  these  few  words:  “ I am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  Nov. 
11,  and  regret  to  note  its  contents.  It  is,  however,  difficult 
to  regulate  affairs  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic.”  On 
March  29,  1902,  Hoffman  replied  to  my  note:  “I  wrote,  as 
I told  you  in  my  letter  of  the  24th  inst.,  two  very  strong 
letters,  one  to  Sir  John  Evans,  and  another  on  Dec.  23  to 
the  London  Comm.  If  the  London  Comm,  take,  as  they  have 
done,  no  notice  of  my  letter,  it  is  absolutely  useless  to  write 
them  again.  I stated  to  them  in  my  letter  that  a change 
in  the  Boston  Office  was  absolutely  necessary.”  Hoffman 
passed  away  last  summer.  A recent  note  from  Mrs.  Hoff- 
man says:  “My  sympathies  are  all  with  you.  I signed  the 
document  (to  have  me  appointed  Hon.  V.  P.)  and  I am  true 
and  loyal  to  you.  ...  I requested  my  name  to  be  taken 
off  the  list  of  local  Secretaries.”  The  25  local  Secs,  and 
subscribers  all  knew  that  my  duty  to  the  American  Branch 
absolutely  required  me  to  report  the  disgraceful  state  of 
affairs  in  the  office  to  the  Committee. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


17 


9.  “That  strong  measures  were  necessary,”  asserts  Evans. 
Yes;  a very  simple  but  decided  “ measure”  would  have  stopped 
all  trouble,  viz.,  my  “general  control,”  maintained  by  vote 
of  the  Committee;  and,  if  resisted  by  the  Sec’y  by  vote 
“Dr.  Winslow  should  have  power  to  displace  and  appoint 
any  assistant  that  he  sees  fit,”  as  Phipps  so  aptly  said.  How 
the  Comm,  failed  to  keep  faith  with  me  through  the  diplo- 
macy of  Cotton  and  other  influences  will  appear  in  this  narra- 
tive. Evans  wished  simply  to  clinch  his  statement  about 
friction  and  my  removal,  and  he  used  innuendo.  To  W.  G. 
Johnston,  Esq.,  Prof.  W.  W.  Goodwin  replied:  “When  a 
man  of  the  high  eminence  of  Sir  John  Evans  expresses  him- 
self as  strongly  as  this,  and  omits  to  say  more,  it  can  hardly 
be  expected  of  those  who  are  not  acquainted  with  the  facts 
of  the  case  that  they  should  question  his  judgment.”  To 
other  inquiries  Goodwin  has  sent  type-written  carbons  of 
Evans’  remarks,  and  they  have  been  disseminated  from  the 
new  Boston  Office.  Goodwin’s  replies  all  insist,  first,  on  the 
ignorance  of  the  Boston  Comm,  respecting  the  causes  of 
my  removal,  and,  secondly,  on  that  Committee’s  entire  irre- 
sponsibility for  my  removal  as  V.  P.,  or  for  my  reappointment 
as  such. 

What  says  Evans  concerning  my  reappointment  as  V.  P.? 
Last  Oct.,  he  replied  to  a local  Sec’y:  “The  question  of  Dr. 
Win- low’s  position  in  respect  to  the  E.  E.  Fund  appears  to 
me  to  be  one  that  only  American  subscribers  to  the  Fund, 
and  especially  those  of  Boston,  can  properly  discuss.”  (Italics 
mine.)  To  a local  Sec’y  Goodwin  replied:  “The  present 
Boston  Comm,  feel  that  they  are  not  called  upon  to  consider 
matters  (such  as  the  V.  P.)  which  were  decided  before  their 
organization.”  But  who  caused  me  to  be  removed  from 
the  office  of  V.  P.?  Robinson  of  Goodwin’s  Comm.,  which 
Comm.  Robinson  formed,  and  of  which  he  himself  became 
a member!  To  me  Goodwin  wrote:  “The  London  Comm, 
is  the  only  body  which  can  properly  consider  such  ques- 
tions” (as  the  V.  P.).  To  Rev.  John  Wright,  Evans  replied 
in  re : “ Any  suggestions  from  the  Boston  Comm,  will  receive 
the  fullest  consideration.”  To  John  Bentley,  Esq.,  of  Brook- 


18 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


lyn,  Evans  replied  concerning  the  V.  P. : “ Any  further  steps 
will  have  to  be  taken  by  the  Boston  Comm.”  To  me  Evans 
replied  concerning  the  late  changes  that  “only  American 
subscribers,  especially  those  in  Boston,  can  properly  discuss 
them.”  To  Mrs.  Donald  Y.  Leslie,  local  Sec’y  at  Buffalo, 
Goodwin  wrote:  “Your  question  should  be  addressed  to 
the  London  Comm.,  who  are  solely  responsible  for  the  action 
which  you  criticise.” 

Do  learned  bodies  usually  play  battledoor  and  shuttle- 
cock? 

As  for  the  causes  of  my  removal  as  V.  P.  let  a few  citations 
be  made.  Goodwin  replied  to  me:  “The  grounds  for  their 
action  (in  London)  are  not  known  to  any  of  us  officially,  and 
not  at  all  to  most  of  us  (including  myself).”  To  Gen.  Darling 
he  replied:  “I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  special  grounds 
on  which  the  Comm,  acted.  . . . Such  questions  as  you 
addressed  to  our  Sec’y  (Lodge)  would  naturally  be  sent  to 
the  London  Comm,  who  alone  can  answer  them.”  As  a 
prominent  member  of  the  banking  firm  of  Brown  Bros,  was 
in  London  last  autumn,  I wrote  to  ask  him  if  he  would 
question  a member  of  the  Comm,  whether  there  was  any- 
thing against  me,  and  why  I was  removed  as  V.  P.  He  was 
courteously  told:  “I  know  of  nothing  against  Dr.  Winslow. 
Personally,  I would  like  to  have  him  continued  at  the  head 
of  our  American  Branch.  But  the  friction  in  the  Boston 
Office  gave  others  an  opportunity  to  effect  a complete  change, 
which  was  occomplished.” 

Who  caused  my  removal  as  Vice  President?  Robinson 
had  informed  me  that  he  declined  to  form  a Comm.,  and  had 
so  cabled  the  London  Comm.  As  the  Comm,  had  voted 
unanimously  that  my  V.  P.  was  intact,  imagine  my  aston- 
ishment to  receive  a notification  a month  later  from  Cotton, 
without  explanation,  that  the  Comm,  had  rescinded  its  vote 
regarding  the  V.  P.,  and  had  voted  to  cancel  both  the  offices 
I had  held.  I called  on  Robinson;  he  refused  to  let  me  see 
a copy  of  his  official  reply  to  London;  what  he  or  others 
wrote  privately  to  London  is  their  affair.  Grueber,  how- 
ever, wrote  to  me:  “Mr.  Robinson  did  not  absolutely  decline 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


19 


to  form  a Committee.  He  said  he  could  not  possibly  under- 
take the  task  so  long  as  you  had  any  control  (only  my  office 
of  V.  P.  remained).  Freed  from  this,  he  pronounced  him- 
self willing  to  consider  the  request  of  the  Comm.  After  a 
long  discussion  at  a special  meeting  yesterday  the  Comm, 
felt  that  the  only  course  to  take  was  to  meet  Mr.  Robinson’s 
views,  and  to  cancel  your  official  connection  with  the  Fund.’ 
Who  caused  my  removal  as  V.  P.?  Robinson.  His  “views,” 
his  dictum,  caused  it.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  one  person 
not  even  a subscriber,  created  the  Committee  to  administer 
the  affairs  of  the  American  Branch  without  the  subscribers 
of  that  Branch  being  even  consulted  — and  that  at  his  request 
the  founder  of  that  Branch  (in  1883),  its  unceasing  worker, 
was  removed  from  his  official  connection  with  it! 

“We  (the  Boston  Committee)  are  in  no  way  concerned 
with  this  action,”  wrote  Goodwin  to  a local  Sec’y.  Yet  the 
single  hand  that  put  Goodwin  upon  the  Committee  struck 
me  down!  To  a local  Sec’y,  Mr.  J.  E.  Lodge  replied:  “Dr. 
Winslow’s  connection  with  the  E.  E.  Fund  was  severed  by 
the  London  Comm,  for  the  reason  that  they  believed  it  to  be 
in  the  best  interest  of  the  Fund.  . . . What  I have  said  to 
you  is  really  all  there  is  to  it.”  No  wonder  that  a local  Sec’y 
at  last  wrote  to  Goodwin  for  “some  reason  why  the  Boston 
Comm,  assents  to  the  insult  put  upon  Dr.  Winslow,”  after 
he  failed  with  Lodge;  but  Goodwin’s  reply  disclaimed  all 
responsibility  for  the  Boston  Comm.,  and  enlarged  upon  “the 
high  eminence”  of  Evans. 

Opinions  of  Subscribers. 

Prof.  Elmer  T.  Merrill,  Ph.D.,  of  Wesleyan  University, 
Middletown,  wrote  to  me  as  follows:  “I  wrote  Mr.  Lodge, 
on  the  basis  of  the  circular  of  the  new  Boston  Comm.,  ask- 
ing why  such  a change  had  been  made,  and  particu- 
larly why  your  name  did  not  appear  anywhere,  remarking 
that  in  the  lack  of  explanation  the  presumption  was  that 
you  had  been  treated  with  discourtesy  and  injustice  in  the 
reorganization.  Mr.  Lodge’s  answer,  and  a copy  of  my 
reply,  I enclose  for  your  reading.” 


20 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


Lodge  replied:  “I  am  only  too  glad  to  give  you  what  in- 
formation I can  regarding  the  reorganization  of  this  office 
and  the  absence  of  Dr.  Winslow’s  name  from  all  publications 
connected  with  the  Fund.  In  doing  this  I feel  that  I can 
send  you  nothing  better  than  an  extract  from  the  recent 
address  of  Sir  John  Evans  before  the  London  Committee.” 
Merrill  rejoined  to  Lodge:  “ . . . You  say  you  are  glad  * to 
give  (me)  what  information  (you)  can  regarding  the  reorgan- 
ization of  (the  Boston)  Office,  and  the  absence  of  Dr.  Wins- 
low’s name  from  the  publications  connected  with  the  Fund.’ 
Yet  all  you  send  me  is  a copy  of  a part  of  Sir  John  Evans’ 
address,  which  I have  already  seen  in  print.  You  surely  are 
able  to  recognize  that  that  says  nothing  at  all  informative 
on  the  matters  regarding  which  you  profess  to  be  giving  me 
information.  I must  therefore  understand  doubtless  that 
you  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  say  anything. 

“You  must  allow  me  to  point  out  that  all  this  puts  not  only 
the  Fund  but  your  Committee  in  an  unfortunate  light,  and 
leaves  the  presumption  precisely  as  I specified  in  my  last 
letter.  Can  you  expect  to  command  the  confidence  and 
further  efforts  of  past  subscribers  under  such  circumstances? 

. . . The  circumstances  of  your  Committee’s  assumption 
of  office,  and  of  your  present  silence,  appear  to  me  extraor- 
dinary. I am  only  fair  in  judging  that  the  reasonable  rights 
of  subscribers  are  being  violated.” 

Prof.  Samuel  Macauley  Jackson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  New 
York  University,  assist,  editor  of  Schaff’s  Bible  Dictionary, 
etc.,  wrote  to  Prof.  Goodwin:  . . The  London  Comm, 

owes  it  to  the  subscribers  in  America  to  explain  its  extraor- 
dinary action  in  depriving  Dr.  Winslow  of  his  honorary  office. 

. . . The  Fund  in  this  country  is  his  creation,  and  has  been 
for  nearly  20  years  his  joy,  his  pride,  and  his  absorbing 
pursuit.  I know  no  reason  why  he  should  not  be  permitted 
to  continue  the  relations  which  have  been  of  such  immense 
advantage  to  the  Fund.  No  reason  was  given  in  the  circular 
announcing  the  formation  of  your  Comm.  None  are  given 
in  the  account  of  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Fund  in  the  Even- 
ing Post.  I appeal  to  you  as  one  too  honorable  to  stab  a 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


21 


brother  in  the  back  and  in  the  dark,  to  send  to  all  the  Ameri- 
can subscribers  some  official  explanation  of  what  looks  like 
a very  uncalled  for  proceeding.  I want  no  personal  reply, 
but  a public  and  official  reply.”  To  which  Goodwin  replied 
that  he  knew  no  more  about  it  than  what  Evans  had  stated 
publicly;  and  that  his  Comm,  was  not  the  body  to  give  sub- 
scribers information  on  this  point.  To  me  Jackson  wrote: 
“The  Fund  is  your  creation  here.  No  detractor  can  rob  you 
of  that  glory.  But  your  very  exceptional  success  has,  I 
fear,  excited  jealousy.”* 

Merrill  I have  never  met,  but  Jackson  I have  known  from 
the  earliest  days  of  the  Fund.  They  express  the  views  of 
many  subscribers. 

Views  of  Local  Secretaries  and  Subscribers. 

Rev.  Morgan  Dix,  D.D.,  D.C.L.,  of  Trinity  Church,  N.  Y.,  a gen- 
erous member,  who  added  $50  to  his  previous  year’s  subscription:  I 
wrote  to  the  office  in  Boston  withdrawing  my  subscription.  I am 
much  displeased  at  the  treatment  you  have  received. 

Hon.  James  P.  Baxter,  President  of  the  New  England  Historic- 
Genealogical  Soc’y,  Boston,  who  signed  the  request  of  the  local  Secre- 
taries to  London  that  I be  appointed  V.  P.;  but  the  Boston  Comm, 
sent  out  before  any  reply  could  come  from  London,  pressing  notes  and 
bills:  “I  have  just  rec’d  your  circular  (a  type-written  one),  and  am  sur- 
prised at  the  action  of  the  Comm.  My  bill  was  sent,  -with  an  urgent 
request  to  pay  my  subscription,  a week  or  two  ago,  and  without  sup- 
posing that  it  would  have  any  effect  unfavorable  to  you  I paid  it.  I 
now  understand  the  reason  of  the  urgency  to  have  prompt  payment. 
Had  I understood  what  the  action  (in  London)  was  to  be,  I certainly 
should  not  have  subscribed,  and  never  shall  again  unless  you  are  re- 
stored (as  V.  P.),  and  I hope  all  who  signed  the  recommendation  for 
your  appointment  will  do  the  same  as  I propose  to  do.”  No  literary- 
business  man  in  all  New  England  has  a stronger  reputation  for  level- 
headedness than  Baxter,  which  as  Mayor  of  Portland,  Pres’t  of  the 
Maine  Hist.  Soc.,  etc.,  etc.,  he  has  shown. 

Archdeacon  Williams  of  the  Diocese  of  Washington  (D.  C.) : I 
have  also  rec’d  the  circular  of  the  present  Comm.  My  answer  has 
been  a complete  resignation  from  all  connection  with  the  Fund.  . . . 
I hope  enough  others  will  drop  out  to  kill  the  Comm.  here. 

•Our  most  prosperous  period  was  1901-2.  I threw  my  soul  into  raising  larger 
sums  than  ever  before. 


22 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


Rev.  W.  Hayes  Ward,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Editor  of  Independent:  It 
appears  to  me  that  a real  injustice  has  been  done. 

General  J.  W.  dePeyster,  LL.D.:  My  nerves  tingle  when  I read 
of  such  cases  as  yours.  I have  always  considered  that  your  and  the 
Society’s  identification  is  mutual. 

James  Schouler,  LL.D.,  Historian:  I sincerely  hope  that  the  grave 
error  may  be  rectified. 

Prof.  Charles  M.  Tyler,  D.D.,  Cornell  University:  I have  for- 
warded my  resignation  (as  local  Sec’y)  and  shall  not  contribute  any 
longer.  The  Management  have  destroyed  my  confidence  in  them. 

Prof.  Willis  J.  Beecher,  D.D.,  Auburn  Theol.  Sem.:  I have  writ- 
ten Dr.  Goodwin  that  I do  not  care  to  support  the  Fund  further.  (Lo- 
cal Sec.  for  that  region.) 

Prof.  E.  H.  Williams,  late  of  Lehigh  University:  I am  not  partic- 
ularly surprised  as  our  English  brethren  are  not  noted  the  world  over 
for  their  courtesy  towards  others  in  cases  where  they  have  the  whip 
end  of  them.  ...  I feel  like  abandoning  the  whole  affair.  ...  It  is 
hard  for  you  to  see  your  efforts  swept  away  by  those  who  have  come 
after  you,  and  are  reaping  where  you  have  sown,  and  entirely  without 
work  of  any  kind  on  their  part.  As  far  as  my  sympathy  goes,  you 
can  count  on  my  depreciation  of  what  has  been  done. 

Miss  Cox:  I have  too  much  respect  for  the  honour  and  justice  of  the 
British  nation  not  to  think  that  before  long  they  will  see  through  the 
trap  that  has  evidently  been  laid  for  them,  and  rectify  the  error.  In- 
deed, I shall  have  a very  poor  opinion  of  our  own  nation  if  there  are 
not  found  enough  men  and  women  of  honour  to  see  that  matters  are 
soon  adjusted  satisfactorily,  and  until  they  are  I shall  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Fund. 

Miss  Kennedy:  It  is  unpardonable.  But  it  cannot  affect  the  im- 
mense debt  due  you  from  all  who  have  the  cause  genuinely  at 
heart. 

Mrs.  E.  D.  Kimball:  I hope  the  number  will  not  be  small  who  will 
remove  their  names  from  the  list  of  subscribers  and  patrons. 

Mrs.  Zabriskie  : It  seems  an  outrage  that  a man  who  has  been  the 
head  and  the  whole  thing  for  so  long  a time  should  be  treated  in  this 
manner. 

Mrs.  Devereux:  It  makes  me  feel  like  withdrawing  all  interest 
since  the  original  association  can  treat  an  American  official,  its  head 
in  this  country,  in  such  a cavalier  and  unjust  manner,  and  with  such 
a lack  of  common  courtesy. 

Mrs.  Ely:  The  entire  success  of  that  Fund  in  this  country  has  been 
due  to  your  unwearying  labors  and  efforts. 

Mrs.  Barnes  : I hope  that  there  will  be  a general  revolt  among  sub- 
scribers. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


23 


Mrs.  Crocker:  I am  greviously  surprised  at  the  action  of  the  Bos- 
ton Comm,  in  ignoring  entirely  your  official  capacity  in  the  E.  E.  F. 
The  origin  and  success  of  it  here  is  due  to  you. 

Mrs.  Herrick  Johnson,  Chicago,  wife  of  ex-Moderator  of  General 
Presbyterian  Assembly:  The  conduct  of  affairs  has  been  shameful. 
Your  past  work  remains  secure,  whatever  is  in  the  future,  and  God 
will  take  care  of  results  as  well  as  of  unscrupulous  schemes. 

Hon.  Lynde  Harrison,  of  New  Haven:  I certainly  shall  not  have 
any  less  opinion  of  you. 

Prof.  Frank  K.  Sanders,  Ph.D.,  Dean  of  Yale  Divinity  School: 
So  far  as  I understand  the  case,  I am  in  entire  sympathy  with  your 
position. 

Hon.  George  G.  Benedict,  LL.D.,  President  of  the  Vermont  Hist. 
Soc. : On  the  whole,  I should  say  you  are  well  out  of  the  business.  If 
the  other  men  can  stand  it,  you  certainly  can.  With  undiminished 
respect,  etc.,  etc. 

Rt.  Rev.  Frederick  W.  Taylor,  D.D.:  I have  written  to  the  Sec’y 
of  the  Boston  Comm,  to  remove  my  name  from  the  list  of  local  Secre- 
taries. My  reasons  are  obvious.  With  all  good  wishes,  etc. 

Henry  Phipps,  Jr.,  Esq.:  You  have  a proper  hold  on  the  office  as 
long  as  you  are  willing  to  retain  it  (Feb.  17,  1902.). 

President  F.  D.  Blakeslee,  D.D.,  Cazenovia,  N.  Y. : Justice  de- 
mands your  reinstatement  (as  V.  P.). 

Timothy  Hopkins,  Trustee  University  of  California:  It  is  a drastic 
reflection  upon  Dr.  Winslow  and  it  will  certainly  do  us  injury  if  not 
based  upon  broad  and  equitable  reasons. 

Rev.  D.  L.  Miller,  D.D.,  Mount  Morris,  111.:  It  really  seems  in- 
credible. I shall  not  respond  to  the  new  Comm. 

Walter  L.  Bogert,  the  musician,  Flatbush,  N.  Y.:  To  most  of  us 
you  are  the  “Fund  ” in  America,  and  no  one  can  take  your  place. 
Apart  from  the  slight  put  upon  you  (let  me  rather  say,  the  brutal  dis- 
regard of  your  feelings),  the  Fund  will  suffer  loss  of  subscribers. 

John  Bentley,  Esq.,  Brooklyn:  Not  only  have  you  been  wronged, 
but  the  interests  of  the  Fund  are  imperiled. 

Prof.  W.  J.  Battle,  Ph.D.,  University  of  Texas:  I sympathize 
keenly  with  you.  It  is  but  an  ill  return  for  many  years  of  hard  and 
disinterested  work. 

Rev.  James  S.  Stone,  D.D., rector  of  St.  James,  Chicago:  I am  with 
you  entirely. 

General  J.  L.  Chamberlain,  LL.D.:  I do  not  see  how  the  powers 
can  help  granting  the  V.  P.,  but  the  whole  affair  will  greatly  embarrass 
the  work  of  the  Fund. 

Rev.  James  R.  Winchester,  D.D.,  Sec’y  in  St.  Louis:  Dr.  Wins- 
low, the  honorable  and  courteous  representative  for  years  of  the  E.  E. 


24 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


Fund  in  America,  has,  in  my  judgment,  after  careful  perusal  of  the 
published  facts,  been  unjustly  treated.  His  removal  will  be  a stumb- 
ling-block in  the  progress  of  the  Soc’y. 

Rev.  William  Short,  D.D.,  local  Sec’y,  St.  Louis:  The  American 
mind  rejoices  in  fair  play,  and  its  verdict  will  be  that  you  have  not 
been  treated  fairly. 

Rev.  S.  M.  Newman.  D,D.,  LL.D.,  pastor  at  Washington:  I have 
been  so  disgusted  with  the  evolution  of  the  “Fund  ” administration 
that  last  week  I withdrew  from  all  connection  with  it  both  as  local 
Sec’y  and  as  a subscriber. 

Hon.  Reverdy  Johnson,  Baltimore,  patron  for  many  years:  I 
think  you  have  been  much  maltreated,  and  that  the  English  parties 
will  in  consequence  lose  many  subscribers.  I shall  decline  to  con- 
tribute further.  You  are  at  liberty  to  use  my  name. 

Rev.  Francis  A.  Horton,  D.D.,  Philadelphia,  local  Sec’y:  You 
have  my  sympathy,  and  whatever  you  may  decide  as  best  will  com- 
mand my  respect. 

Rev.  Charles  A.  Jessup,  D.D.,  local  Sec’y,  Greenport,  N.  Y.:  It 
is  impossible  not  to  regret  that  anything  has  occurred  to  deprive  the 
E.  E.  F.  work  of  your  name  and  labors.  I hope  the  outcome  will  be 
to  restore  you  to  the  place  you  have  honored  so  long. 

President  James  M.  Taylor,  D.D.,  Vassar,  referring  to  the  V.  P.: 
I am  glad  to  know  that  something  is  being  said  by  those  who  appre- 
ciate all  that  you  have  done  in  the  past. 

Rev.  James  Morrow,  D.D.,  Philadelphia,  local  Sec’y:  I trust  the 
movement  for  your  restoration  as  V.  P.  will  be  successful. 

Col.  Jacob  L.  Greene,  Hartford,  Pres’t  Conn.  Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co. : 
The  most  surprising  action  in  the  reorganization  of  the  Fund  on 
this  side  of  the  Atlantic  . . . and  I can  but  regard  it  as  most  unfor- 
tunate. 

Renwich  B.  Knox,  banker,  Duluth : I should  be  in  favor  of  sever- 
ing all  connection  with  the  present  E.  E.  F.,  and  starting  out  on  our 
own  hook,  and  let  the  “ Boston  Comm.”  control  themselves. 

Robert  J.  Hubbard,  Esq.,  Cazenovia,  N.  Y. : I am  not  only  un- 
willing to  remain,  but  shall  cease  my  subscription. 

Hon.  Henry  E.  Pierrepont,  Brooklyn : Let  John  Bull  go  without 
U.  S.  money  for  a while. 

Archdeacon  Chambre,  D.D.,  Lowell:  It  is  altogether  too  bad  — 
and  my  sympathies  are  with  you. 

Archdeacon  Carey,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Saratoga:  You  have  built  up 
the  Soc’y  in  America,  and  your  name  is  a tower  of  strength. 

.Rev.  Joseph  A.  Seiss,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Philadelphia,  the  eminent  Lu- 
theran author,  etc.:  My  confidence  in  the  managers  of  the  Fund  is 
shaken,  and  my  respect  for  them  much  diminished. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


25 


Rev.  Jeremiah  Zimmerman,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Syracuse:  Such  base 
injustice  and  gross  ingratitude  are  exasperating. 

David  Harlowe,  Milwaukee:  I am  opposed  to  paying  any  sub- 
scription to  the  “Committee  ” as  now  organized. 

C.  Leidich,  Esq.,  Detroit:  The  treatment  you  have  received  from 
a few  who  have  assumed  power  is  not  only  an  injustice  to  you,  but 
to  all  members. 

Rev.  J.  E.  Kittredge,  D.D.,  Geneseo,  N.  Y. : This  London  action, 
if  not  revoked,  must  end  my  personal  subscriptions  to  the  E.  E.  F., 
and  all  efforts  therefor.  My  subscriptions  began  with  Miss  Amelia 
B.  Edwards  in  1883. 

M.  H.  Logan,  M.D.:  Since  the  death  of  Amelia  B.  Edwards  some 
of  us  have  felt  that  the  mantle  had  fallen  upon  the  shoulders  of  an 
honored  and  worthy  successor,  yourself. 

Mrs.  H.  L.  Van  Nuts,  local  Sec’y,  Goshen,  Ind.,  upon  the  circular 
of  the  Boston  Comm. : It  strikes  me  as  rather  strange  that  the  London 
Comm,  should  “determine  ” what  may  be  “for  the  advantage  ” of 
American  subscribers,  and  thereupon  reach  across  the  Atlantic  and 
proceed  to  set  aside  an  official,  nolens  volens,  after  the  good  old  style 
of  King  George  of  blessed  memory.  And,  too,  it  is  rather  inconsist- 
ent that  any  one  member  of  the  new  Comm,  should  not  be  a sub- 
scriber. 

Rev.  James  Carter,  D.D.,  Williamsport,  Penn.:  This  is  a more 
egregious  blunder  than  that  of  1897.  If  the  London  Comm,  were 
desirous  of  offending  the  American  subscribers,  they  could  hardly  have 
chosen  a more  effective  method.  It  does  seem  essential  that  the  sub- 
scribers generally  should  know  the  affront  which  has  been  put  upon 
them  in  the  indignity  showed  to  you. 

From  letters  of  those  who  renewed  their  subscriptions 
two  extracts.  Miss  Ellen  M.  Ward:  “It  is  outrageous, 
abominable,  unjust.  ...  I finally  concluded  to  send  my 
subscription  — I am  inclined  to  think  that  I shall  not  renew 
next  year;  but  I shall  see  what  course  events  take.”  Miss 
Sybil  Carter,  deaconess  and  leader  in  missionary  work:  “I 
am  sorry  to  say  my  money  has  gone  in.  ...  I am  going  to 
England  about  April  1,  and  if  by  that  time  you  are  not 
appointed  V.  P.,  I shall  certainly  ‘say  my  say,’  emphatically, 
too.” 

Many  letters  rec’d  are  too  severe  for  me  to  quote;  others  are 
private;  some  very  sympathetic  but  pointless  unless  pro- 
duced entire.  But  the  foregoing  selections  sufficiently  ex- 


26 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


press  variety  of  opinion  from  a variety  of  types  of  subscribers, 
such  as  Dix,  Schouler,  Ward,  Baxter,  Phipps,  and  Mrs.  Her- 
rick Johnson. 

Just  one  oral  opinion.  The  correspondent  of  an  impor- 
tant religious  weekly  came  to  me  for  information.  He  had 
seen  two  or  three  members  of  the  new  Comm.,  but  failed  to 
elicit  any  definite  cause  for  my  removal.  I asked  him  if 
Foster  had  given  any  reason  therefor.  He  replied  that 
Foster  could  not  or  would  not  state  any  reason,  but  hinted 
that  perhaps  the  London  Comm,  thought  I lacked  business 
qualities.  This  correspondent  was  amazed  at  the  documen- 
tary data  I showed  him;  by  appointment  he  devoted  sub- 
sequently at  least  three  hours  to  reading  carefully  documen- 
tary evidence  and  hearing  my  explanation  thereon.  (Some 
of  this  evidence  will  appear  in  this  brochure;  some  of  it 
simply  cannot  be  published.)  He  exclaimed,  as  he  was 
leaving,  “You  are  the  worst  victimized  man  I have  ever 
heard  of.” 

Were  there  decreasing  subscriptions?  The  years  1900- 
1902  were  the  most  prosperous  in  our  Branch’s  history.  I 
gave  my  best  energies  to  raising  subscriptions,  especially 
securing  donations  for  one  division  of  the  work.  In  view  of 
this  and  partly  because  of  my  subscription  of  $125  each  to 
the  three  departments  of  the  Fund,  the  Comm,  elected  me 
an  Hon’y  Life  Member  of  the  Fund  in  each  of  the  three 
branches.  (See  Annual  Rep.)  This  was  in  early  May, 
1901.  My  one  aim  is  impartiality  and  justice  throughout 
this  statement.  Whenever  I can  speak  favorably  of  those 
mentioned  I shall  do  it.  I believe  that  could  the  English 
subscribers  become  acquainted  with  the  facts  causing  the 
arbitrary  reorganization  of  the  administration  of  the  American 
Branch,  “ the  honour  and  justice  of  the  British  nation,”  re- 
ferred to  by  Miss  Cox,  would  assert  itself  in  some  form  among 
subscribers  who  attend  the  next  annual  meeting  in  London. 
But  in  no  way  can  English  subscribers  learn  of  the  facts, 
nor  would  those  now  “running”  the  Committee  furnish  the 
addresses  of  subscribers  so  that  I could  send  a statement  to 
subscribers.  But  three  or  four  members  of  the  Comm,  make 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


27 


a quorum.  There  are  30  names  on  the  Committee;  some 
of  the  chief  names  are  seldom  represented  at  a meeting. 

Why  did  not  Evans  give  the  entire  text  of  the  resolutions 
of  April  and  May,  1902,  so  that  his  readers  could  see  for 
themselves  how  the  reorganization  was  effected?  Because 
just  one  man,  not  even  a subscriber,  was  empowered  to  reor- 
ganize the  administration  over  the  Americans  by  selecting  a 
Comm,  for  them.  Because  some  fair-minded  English  sub- 
scribers would  have  thought:  “If  the  Comm,  were  in  New 
York,  and  we  the  English  Branch,  would  we  like  to  have 
New  York  vote  that  our  Comm,  in  London  shall  be  selected 
by  one  man  who  is  not  a subscriber,  who  is  not  even  inter- 
ested in  Egyptology?”  At  any  rate,  why  did  Evans  violate 
the  usages  of  non-personality  in  a presidential  address? 

CAUSE  OF  THE  TROUBLES. 

One  person  caused  the  troubles  in  the  Boston  Office,  but 
others  must  share  with  her  the  responsibility  for  their  con- 
tinuance, and  are  accountable  for  their  final  results.  She 
shall  be  called  simply  Mrs.  B.  My  readers  will  appreciate 
how  difficult  a task  is  now  before  me ; and  a number  of  local 
Secretaries  and  subscribers,  who  know  at  least  some  of  the 
facts,  will  sympathize  with  my  trying  position. 

Dr.  Charles  H.  S.  Davis,  editor  of  Biblia  at  Meriden,  Conn., 
replied  to  Gen.  C.  W.  Darling  of  Utica,  last  Nov.,  touching 
the  cause  of  the  troubles:  “She  very  soon  ignored  Dr.  Wins- 
low completely,  and  considered  herself  as  the  head  of  the 
Fund  in  this  country.  She  went  to  London,  and  ingratiated 
herself  with  the  Comm.  Dr.  W.  forwarded  documentary 
evidence  that  she  was  not  fitted  to  hold  her  position,  and  it 
was  thought  best  in  London  to  organize  an  entirely  new 
Comm.,  which  certainly  is  a great  mistake.”  To  me  Davis 
wrote  when  I informed  him  that  I must  publish  a statement : 
“You  were  undermined  by  an  ambitious  and  designing 
woman,  aided  by  persons  whom  she  had  hypnotized.  There 
is  the  whole  story,  and  along  with  the  falsehoods,  who  could 
withstand  it?  The  whole  truth  shcruld  be  made  known, 
and  put  very  strongly.”  He  had  the  best  of  opportunities 


28 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


for  forming  an  accurate  judgment  upon  the  cause  of  the 
trouble. 

In  Jan.,  1902,  Herbert  A.  Grugber,  Esq.,  Hon’y  Treasurer, 
was  good’enough  to  warn  me:  “You  must  stick  to  your  guns 
firmly,  as  it  is  a simple  question  whether  you  are  the  master 
or  not;  or  whether  Mrs.  B.  is  to  rule.  Her  game  is  to  mini- 
mize your  authority,  and  finally  to  crush  you.”  In  Nov., 
1901,  President  Evans  wrote  to  me  upon  some  plan  of  defin- 
ing more  exactly  her  duties,  and  added,  “Mrs.  B.  appears 
to  me  to  entirely  misapprehend  her  position.”  The  day 
following  the  vote  for  my  removal,  May  28,  1902,  Grueber 
ended  his  letter  to  me,  “In  future  one’s  motto  must  be, 
Ne  cherchez  pas  la  femme  pour  Secretaire.” 

But  who  also  is  responsible? 

1.  The  London  Committee.  Had  it  simply  upheld  my 
authority  as  Hon.  Sec’y,  the  troubles  could  have  ended  in 
the  Boston  Office  where  they  started.  My  duties  and  rights 
had  been  clearly  defined,  and  I expected  the  Comm,  honor- 
ably to  uphold  “the  official  representative  of  the  Fund  in 
America”  placed  in  “general  control”  over  the  work  of 
the  Boston  Office.  In  Oct.,  1897,  the  Committee,  in 
view  of  my  reappointment  as  Hon.  Sec’y,  passed  resolu- 
tions defining  the  duties  of  the  three  officials  of  the  Boston 
Office. 

From  the  Resolutions:  — 

The  Hon.  Secretary  shall  be  the  official  representative  of 
the  Fund  in  America.  In  all  important  matters  he  is 
authorized  to  take  the  initiative,  and  to  draft  and  sign  cir- 
culars and  letters  in  his  own  name.  In  financial  affairs 
he  shall  consult  with  the  Hon.  Treasurer.  As  regards  the 
ordinary  business  of  the  Fund,  he  shall  exercise  a general 
control  over  the  work  of  the  office  in  Boston.  He  shall  com- 
municate officially  with  the  Committee. 

The  Hon.  Treasurer  shall  conduct  the  financial  business  of 
the  Fund  in  America.  He  shall  consult  with  the  Hon.  Sec- 
retary and  with  the  Secretary.  He  shall  communicate  offi- 
cially with  the  Hon.  Treasurer  in  London. 

The  Secretary  shall  conduct  the  ordinary  business  of  the 
office  in  Boston  on  her  own  responsibility,  subject  to  the 
general  control  of  the  Hon.  Secretary.  She  shall,  when  nec- 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


29 


essary,  communicate  officially  with  the  Hon.  Secretary  in 
London,  or  with  the  London  Secretary. 

The  Hon.  Secretary,  Hon.  Treasurer  and  Secretary  shall 
together  constitute  the  Office  in  Boston.  They  shall  consult 
together  for  the  general  interests  of  the  Fund. 

Miss  Helen  Dennison,  the  previous  Sec’y,  in  Oct.,  1897 
received  Grueber’s  reply  to  her  inquiry:  “Dr.  Winslow  has 
been  appointed  Hon.  Sec’y,  which  practically  restores  him 
to  his  former  position.  As  Hon.  Sec’y  he  will  have  the  chief 
control  of  the  affairs  of  the  Fund  in  America.”  To  Rev. 
J.  E.  Kittredge  Grueber  wrote:  “Dr.  Winslow  has  always 
been  so  devoted  to  his  work  that  I am  very  glad  to  see  him 
reinstated  at  the  head  of  affairs.”  Although  Mrs.  B.  con- 
gratulated me  heartily  on  my  reappointment  as  Hon.  Sec’y, 
she  protested  to  Cotton,  perhaps  the  Comm,  also,  against 
my  having  “control”;  but  even  Cotton,  her  ally,  writing  to 
me  upon  her  objection,  remarked  of  her  routine  office  work: 
“ The  more  work  she  actually  undertakes  the  less  is  laid  upon 
your  shoulders,  while  the  dignity  and  superior  authority 
will  always  rest  with  you.”  In  1898,  letters  from  subscribers 
urged  London  to  maintain  my  authority;  a reply  to  Rev. 
John  Wright  from  London  concluded:  “The  Committee  will 
carefully  guard  his  rights  as  Hon.  Sec’y,  and  Vice  President 
for  the  United  States.” 

2.  Francis  C.  Foster,  Hon.  Treasurer.  Had  not  this 
man,  owing  to  his  infatuation,  or  for  other  reasons,  upheld 
the  Sec’y  in  her  career,  thereby  leading  him  to  interfere  with 
my  own  department,  the  troubles  could  have  been  checked. 
Probably,  the  Sec’y  would  not  have  attempted  to  “minimize” 
my  authority  to  the  extent  she  aimed  at.  But  far  worse; 
he  accepted  her  statements  on  all  matters  as  true  and  gov- 
erned his  action  accordingly.  Nor  did  he  justly  and  honor- 
ably give  me  any  opportunity  “to  speak  or  explain,”  but 
acted  in  a most  ex  parte  manner.  He  would  not  heed  any 
written  statements  from  me;  nor  evidence  proffered;  nor 
requests  to  make  inquiries  regarding  Mrs.  B.;  and  up  to  May, 
1902,  was,  like  Ephraim,  joined  to  his  idol.  Then  he  col- 
lapsed under  evidence  * forced  upon  him  by  a friend,  and,  I 

* Some  of  which  will  appear  in  this  narrative. 


30 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


believe,  urged  a clean  sweep  of  both  my  offices,  in  his  mighty 
pique.  I shall  not  discuss  his  personal  motives,  his  sincerity, 
in  his  unprecedented  course  towards  a fellow  official,  and  his 
devotion  to  Mrs.  B.  I am  dealing  with  facts  in  this  narrative. 

3.  James  S.  Cottox,  Hon.  Secretary.  Had  not  Cotton  been 
the  devoted  ally  of  Mrs.  B.,  from  the  date  of  his  visit  to  Bos- 
ton, and  used  his  official  position  in  her  interests,  she  might 
have  modified  her  efforts  to  rule  the  Boston  Office,  and  Foster 
have  advised  her  to  be  more  discreet  in  her  official  position. 
Had  it  not  been  for  Cotton,  neither  Foster  nor  she  would  have 
gone  to  the  lengths  that  they  did  in  the  fall  of  1901,  after 
her  trip  to  London,  where  “she  ingratiated  herself  with  the 
Comm.”  But  I anticipate  the  facts  in  their  sequence. 

SOME  ESSENTIAL  HISTORY. 

Retrospect  is  needed  here,  to  throw  light  upon  facts  yet  to 
be  stated. 

1.  How  came  Mrs.  B.  to  be  a local  Secretary?  She  made 
a few  calls  at  the  office,  while  Miss  Dennison  was  Sec’y,  in 
1895;  Gen.  Loring  had  also  commended  her  interest  in  the 
Egyptian  collection  at  the  museum.  She  told  me  that  through 
her  suggestion  I had  been  asked  to  speak  on  Egypt  at  the 
Baptist  Social  Union;  and  when  I did  so  I noticed  on  their 
program  lines,  “Egypt,  my  Dream,”  dedicated  to  me,  which 
she  sent  to  Biblia  for  March,  ’96.  Her  interest  in  the  cause 
seemed  intense.  I assented  to  her  wish  to  be  a local  Sec’y, 
so  that  she  could  feel  authorized  to  solicit  subscriptions. 

2.  How  came  Mrs.  B.  to  be  Secretary  of  the  Boston  Com- 
mittee? But,  first,  the  context. 

Several  times  I had  intimated  to  the  London  Comm,  the 
desirability  of  having  a Comm,  here  to  cooperate  with  me  in 
the  work.  I did  not  like  so  much  responsibility.  In  Oct., 
’95,  I named  several  subscribers,  one  of  them  Gen.  Loring, 
as  suitable  persons  for  the  nucleus  of  what  might  evolve 
into  a representative  committee.  For  I did  not  then,  do 
not  now,  think  that  any  plenipotentiary  committee  should 
be  placed  over  the  American  Branch  without  reference  to 
subscribers  or,  at  least,  to  local  Secretaries.  Assuredly  not, 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


31 


in  opposition  to  their  wishes.  I had  been  officially  informed 
that  “such  an  arrangement  the  Comm,  would  leave  entirely 
in  your  hands.’  ’ I received  a copy  of  resolutions,  first  of  all 
handsomely  recognizing  my  labors,  and  then  reorganizing 
the  Boston  Office  by  appointing  a Committee  of  five  persons, 
including  Loring  as  chairman,  and  myself  as  a member  of  it. 
Of  the  three  others  appointed,  one  had  been  named  by  me 
in  my  letter  to  London,  but  the  other  two  were  not  even  sub- 
scribers and  not  interested.  I reflected  a day  or  two  upon 
the  subject.  On  going  to  Loring  I found  that  the  resolutions 
had  been  sent  him;  that  he  had  already  written  to  the  other 
three  appointees,  had  rec’d  their  acceptance,  had  appointed 
a meeting  to  organize,  and  that  he  had  just  indited  a note 
to  me  asking  my  attendance.  So  my  resolutions  were  really 
a copy  of  resolutions  sent  to  him!  Yet  I was  the  Hon’y  Sec’y 
(as  well  as  V.  P.)  in  the  United  States,  and  he  a subscriber 
simply.  I felt  I ought  to  have  explanations  from  London. 
As  it  proved,  and  I ascertained  while  in  London  the  following 
year,  the  appointment  of  a chairman  was  illegal  — it  was 
ultra  vires  in  English  law. 

Thompson  replied  to  me,  regretting  any  mistake,  and 
Grueber,  regretting  any  annoyance  caused  me.  But  Presi- 
dent Fowler  officially  declared  to  me:  “The  Committee 

FULLY  AGREE  WITH  YOU  THAT  IN  ANY  REORGANIZATION  OF 

the  American  Branch  the  approval  of  American  sub- 
scribers IS  ESSENTIAL.  THEY  CAN  DESIRE  NOTHING  ELSE.” 
He  had  uttered  a minor  Magna  Charta,  as  true  now  as  then. 

Prof.  A.  H.  Sayce wrote  to  me:  “I  feel  sure  that  nothing 
will  be  done  without  due  consultation  with  one  whose  work 
and  experience  in  America  are  unique.  I remember  Miss 
Amelia  B.  Edwards  describing  you  as  ‘the  Fund’  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  that  it  is  through  your  en- 
thusiasm and  exertions  that  American  subscribers  have  been 
obtained  for  our  labors  in  Egypt.” 

As  Loring  was  soon  to  take  a vacation  in  Europe  he  post- 
poned “reorganization”  till  the  fall.  Some  of  the  local 
Secs,  and  subscribers  had  already  expressed  disapproval 
of  the  new  deal,  and  some  of  these  insisted  that  I should  be 


32 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


the  head  of  any  committee  organized  in  Boston.  Loring, 
on  the  other  hand,  expatiated  to  me  upon  the  honor  and 
responsibility  that  would  belong  to  the  office  of  Hon.  Sec’y, 
to  which  the  new  Comm,  would  assuredly  appoint  me.  “It 
will  make  you  literary  head,”  he  said.  But  my  own  wish, 
as  stated  in  my  circular  subsequently,  was  to  have  as  Presi- 
dent a man  of  national  reputation,  such  as  Norton  of  Har- 
vard, Low  of  Columbia,  Harper  of  Chicago,  or  our  hon’y  V.  P., 
Chas.  Dudley  Warner.  But,  before  he  sailed,  Loring  urged 
upon  me  the  importance  of  our  having  a very  capable  woman 
for  Sec’y  in  the  office,  and  he  suggested  Mrs.  B.  as  fitted  for 
the  place.  Whether  he  and  she  had  discussed  this  point  I 
have  never  known.  But  she  had  expressed  to  me  privately 
her  disapproval  of  having  Loring  at  the  head  of  the  Comm., 
and  she  opened  correspondence  with  subscribers  who  had  also 
opposed  the  new  deal.  In  my  great  love  for  the  cause  I had 
finally  determined  to  sink  every  personal  feeling  and  work 
with  Loring  upon  any  possible  basis  of  unity.  I accepted 
his  invitation  to  attend  the  meeting  of  reorganization  in 
Nov.,  which,  however,  the  two  members  who  were  not  sub- 
scribers did  not  attend.  Only  Loring,  Mrs.  Whitman  and  I 
were  present.  He  had  asked  me  if  I would  assent  to  appoint- 
ing Mrs.B.,  and  if  I would  speak  to  her  concerning  the  salary. 
I urged  that  Miss  Dennison  had  proved  a capable,  and  alto- 
gether a reliable  and  faithful  Sec’y,  even  if  she  lacked  the 
knowledge  of  “Egypt”  which  Mrs.  B.  possessed.  Mrs.  B. 
proposed  to  have  the  office  at  her  rooms,  “in  order  to  save 
rent.”  I urged  Loring  to  place  a niche,  “just  a desk,”  at 
our  disposal  in  the  museum.  He  said  the  space  could  not 
be  spared.  The  salary  had  been  $600,  but,  in  view  of  not 
having  rent  to  pay,  it  was  raised  to  $800,  which  included  the 
free  use  of  her  library-room  as  an  office.  (The  office  rent 
had  been  $360  a year.)  I told  Mrs.  B.  that  such  an  arrange- 
ment would  be  experimental;  that  with  the  expected  increase 
of  subscriptions  we  might  well  afford  to  pay  her  $800,  and 
also  rent  a suitable  office  for  perhaps  $300.  Thus,  in  Nov., 
1896,  Mrs.  B.  was  installed  Sec’y,  and  Mr.  G.  M.  Lane, 
who  had  not  attended  the  meetings,  became  Treasurer. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


33 


WHAT  CAUSED  THE  SPLIT. 

When  the  circular  with  Loring  as  head  of  the  new  Comm, 
appeared,  many  letters  of  disapproval  came  from  subscrib- 
ers. Some  thought  I had  been  too  easily  placated.  Loring 
attended  to  the  printing  of  the  circular,  and  the  title,  “The 
Executive  Comm,  for  America,”  was  used.  I had  objected 
to  assuming  such  a title  (as  I do  now)  for  any  local  Comm., 
or  until  such  a Comm,  could  be  truly  representative  both 
in  itself  and  in  its  proper  appointment.  Although  the  official 
letter  from  London  authorizing  the  organization  of  the  new 
Comm,  was  addressed  to  Loring,  he  had  proposed  to  me  to 
print  the  one  addressed  to  me,  “Because,”  he  said,  “it  would 
look  better,”  etc. 

Sir  E.  M.  Thompson,  presiding  at  the  annual  meeting,  on 
Nov.  13,  1896,  stated  the  case  thus:  — 

The  Committee  have  felt  for  some  time  that  Dr.  Winslow, 
who  has  been  the  sole  manager  in  America,  and  who  has 
done  such  good  service,  has  had  too  much  responsibility 
thrown  upon  him  personally,  and  the  Committee  felt  it  was 
best  to  have  an  American  Committee,  leaving  to  that  body 
the  management  of  their  own  affairs  and  the  making  of  their 
own  arrangements.  There  has  been  some  little  difficulty 
in  getting  the  matter  settled,  but  General  Loring,  the  Presi- 
dent, who  was  in  England  last  summer,  and  whom  I had 
the  pleasure  of  seeing,  this  morning  sent  me  a cablegram 
telling  me  that  the  Committee  was  organized,  that  Dr. 
Winslow  was  appointed  Honorary  Secretary  and  Mr.  Lane 
Treasurer,  and  we  may  consider  that  their  arrangements 
are  now  in  working  order. 

But  the  official  letter  to  Loring  (drawn  up  by  Thompson 
and  Grueber)  had  stated: 

The  Committee  of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  have  had 
under  serious  consideration  a letter  which  Dr.  Winslow  ad- 
dressed to  them  on  the  18th  of  October  last,  and  in  which 
he  proposed  that  certain  gentlemen  and  one  lady  in  the 
United  States  should  be  added  to  the  Committee,  or  should 
form  an  American  Committee  if  thought  more  expedient.  He 
has  also  expressed  on  other  occasions  a desire  to  be  relieved 


34 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


of  the  labors  and  responsibility  of  managing  single-handed 
the  affairs  of  the  Fund  in  America.  With  these  considera- 
tions before  them,  etc. 

Thus  the  statement  at  the  meeting  gave  the  distinct 
impression  that  the  Comm,  had  originated  the  idea  of  having 
a Comm,  in  Boston,  and  acted  upon  it.  The  official  letter 
to  myself  had  put  the  case  quite  differently.  The  circular 
of  the  new  Comm,  had  been  distributed  before  a copy  of  the 
London  proceedings  reached  me.  I was  a little  nettled, 
of  course,  particularly  so  after  yielding  so  much  for  peace 
and  for  the  cause.  I wrote  to  London  upon  this  discrep- 
ancy (apparently)  of  statements,  and  its  lack  of  fairness  to 
me,  but  Thompson’s  statement  was  allowed  to  appear,  later 
on,  in  the  Annual  Report  for  1896. 

Unfortunate  for  peace  was  this  statement  of  Thompson 
added  to  the  tactics  of  Loring.  It  afforded  the  new  Sec’y 
her  opportunity.  She  remarked  that  Loring  had  prejudiced 
Thompson  against  me  in  their  London  interview.  Already 
she  had  complained  to  me  of  Loring’s  arbitrary  manner 
and  ways.  I assured  her  that  in  his  museum  work  he  had 
acquired  that  manner,  and  allowance  must  be  made.  I need 
not  go  into  details.  She  had  written  many  subscribers  upon 
the  “mistake”  of  London  and  the  “gross  wrong”  done  me. 
Of  the  perhaps  150  letters  of  protest  sent  to  London  from 
subscribers  fully  one  half  of  them  were  inspired  by  her.  I 
frequently  restrained  her  ardor,  and  bade  her  be  careful  of 
her  assertions  to  influence  subscribers.  She  said  Lane  was 
discourteous  to  her,  treating  her  more  like  a menial  than  an 
official,  and  that  he  commented  upon  me  in  a way  that  she 
did  not  like.  During  the  winter  he  called  twice  upon  me. 
He  thought  me  altogether  in  the  wrong,  and  Loring  altogether 
in  the  right.  He  impressed  me  as  one  of  the  most  deter- 
mined men  I had  ever  met,  and  he  seemed  surprised  that 
I did  not  yield  to  his  views  at  once.  His  language  was  such 
at  the  last  interview  that  Mrs.  Winslow  urged  me  not  to  see 
him  again.  It  so  happened  that  Mrs.  B.  had  told  me  of  an 
outrageous  remark  which  (she  said)  Loring  made  and  I was 
in  no  mood  to  be  browbeaten  by  him.  (See  2 below.) 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


35 


Had  Loring  treated  me  with  frankness  at  the  outset,  and 
on  that  basis  had  we  conferred  together,  we  should  have 
come  to  some  agreement.  But  the  powers  of  evil  seemed 
to  have  been  favoring  the  designs  of  Mrs.  B.  What  made 
RECONCILIATION  BETWEEN  THE  LORING  COMMITTEE  AND  MY- 
SELF apparently  impossible  ? I specify  but  four  reasons. 

1.  The  Honorary  Secretaryship.  Repeatedly  had  Mrs. 
B.  said  to  me  that  with  Loring  as  head  of  the  Comm,  my 
post  of  Hon.  Sec’y  would  be  an  empty  title.  She  would  cite 
remarks  which  she  said  he  made,  indicating  his  intention  to 
be  director  de  facto  of  our  affairs.  She  said  she  believed 
Loring  would  abolish  the  office  of  Hon.  Sec’y  as  soon  as  the 
new  Comm,  was  firmly  intrenched:  which  meant  that  I, 
simply  a member  of  the  Comm.,  would  be  powerless.  I knew 
that  Lane  and  Mrs.  Whitman  would  form  with  Loring  the 
majority,  and  that  they  would  act  together.  Mrs.  B.  said 
she  did  not  like  to  have  Loring  dictating  to  her  in  all  her  work 
at  the  office.  I combated  Mrs.  B.’s  views  respecting  the 
Hon.  Secretaryship,  for  they  meant  that  Loring  was  playing 
double.  He  had  particularly  emphasized  to  me  the  dignity 
and  duties  of  that  office!  Later  on,  Mrs.  B.  renewed  her 
statement,  adding,  “I  had  a note  from  Loring,  and  since 
you  don’t  believe  it  possible  that  your  office  may  be  abol- 
ished, I can  show  it  to  you.”  As  she  knew  I could  not  speak 
of  the  note  to  Loring,  she  gave  it  to  me.  This  note  to  Mrs. 
B.,  in  Loring’s  handwriting,  staggered  me.  It  contained  these 
words:  “ When  you  speak  of  the  Treasurer,  please  do  not 
use  the  ‘Honorary’  — it  is  an  English  fad  that  in  America 
had  best  be  dropped.  We  appointed  Mr.  W.  Hon’y  Sec’y 
because  he  is  fond  of  titles.”  Even  then,  I tried  to  explain 
the  matter  to  Loring’s  advantage,  but  Mrs.  B.  promptly  met 
it  by  remarking  that  when  the  “fad”  is  dropped  from  your 
office,  how  can  there  be  two  Secretaries?  I said,  “Do  you 
think  General  Loring  capable  of  playing  a double  part?” 
Her  reply  was,  “I  think  him  capable  of  doing  anything.” 
The  thought  flashed  over  me  how  Loring  did  not  wish  my 
appointment  as  Hon.  Sec’y  by  his  Comm,  confirmed  in  Lon- 
don, and  that  strengthened  Mrs.  B.’s  statement  that  my 


36 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


office  would  be  abolished.  For  confirmation  by  the 
London  Comm,  would  be  an  obstacle  to  Loring’s  alleged 
scheme.* 

2.  A Brutal  Remark.  Some  time  later,  Mrs.  B.  referred 
to  her  remark  that  Loring  was  “capable  of  anything,”  by 
quoting  to  me  what  she  declared  he  had  said  to  her  regarding 
a matter  in  my  own  family.  He  had  referred  to  me  as  not 
altogether  sane,  and  then,  she  stated,  added  the  brutal  re- 
mark. She  insisted  upon  the  accuracy  of  her  statement.  I 
had  her  repeat  her  statement  in  the  presence  of  a reliable 
and  interested  person. 

3.  A Statement  by  Mr.  Lane.  Mrs.  B.  informed  me  with 
commingled  banter  and  gravity  that  I must  be  taken  care 
of,  and  that  formerly  I had  been  an  inmate  of  an  insane 
asylum!  “Mr.  Lane  says  so.”  Later  on,  I asked  Mrs.  B. 
if  she  would  make  this  statement  over  her  signature.  She 
drew  up  and  signed  on  our  official  note  paper  this  statement : 
“This  is  to  certify  that  on  or  about  Jan.  20,  1897,  I called 
at  Mr.  Gardiner  M.  Lane’s  office  upon  Egypt  Exploration 
Fund  business.  During  the  interview  he  said:  ‘No  doubt 
Dr.  Winslow  is  insane;  he  was  once  confined  in  an  insane 
asylum.’  ...  I inquired  where  he  obtained  his  information; 
he  replied:  ‘From  a reliable  source.’” 

It  is  needless  to  remark  that  I was  never  under  any  medi- 
cal treatment  for  any  serious  ailment  in  my  life  except  that 
la  grippe  annoyed  me  in  March,  1897. 

4.  An  Extraordinary  Statement.  Early  in  March  the  B’s 
began  to  urge  me  to  go  to  London  and  “get  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  Boston  Comm,  canceled.”  As  a supreme  effort, 
they  informed  me  that  I must  go,  for  Loring  had  declared  to 
them  that  the  London  Comm,  considered  me  not  honest, 
or  words  to  that  effect.  I requested  the  B.’s  to  put  this  in 
writing,  and,  on  March  16,  they  gave  me  a paper  signed  by 
them  both,  stating  what  Loring  had  said  to  them.  It  stated 
that  Loring  said  that  a statement  had  been  laid  before  the 
London  Comm.,  and  their  paper  concluded:  “Gen.  Loring 

* Documentary  and  epistolary  quotations,  for  some  of  my  statements  are 
omitted  for  brevity’s  sake. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


37 


represented  (to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  B.)  that  the  London  Comm, 
wished  to  have  Dr.  Winslow  exposed,  but  to  save  Dr.  Winslow 
and  a scandal  he  (Gen.  Loring)  and  his  Comm,  were  trying 
to  prevent  such  exposure.  Gen.  Loring  added  that  Dr. 
Winslow’s  unsoundness  of  mind  weighed  with  them.”  . . . 
“ We  can  add  to  our  statement  of  March  16,  1897,  that  Gen. 
Loring  remarked  that  it  was  very  fortunate  that  Dr.  Wins- 
low suggested  having  a Comm,  to  work  with  him,  as  it  gave 
the  London  Comm,  the  opportunity  to  select  the  Comm, 
appointed.” 

Promptly  I cabled  Grueber  that  I should  sail  at  once  and 
bring  accounts  with  me.  Reply:  “No  need  to  bring  ac- 
counts. Question  has  not  been  raised.”  A note  from  Loring 
said  he  had  rec’d  a cablegram  which  he  did  not  compre- 
hend; asking  him  to  stop  my  going  to  London;  and  that 
“the  London  Comm,  know  nothing  about  accounts.”  The 
B.’s  reiterated  their  statement  to  me.  I concluded  that  Lor- 
ing had  made  remarks  upon  which  they  formed  their  impres- 
sion. One  of  my  circulars  dealt  with  finance:  “English 
and  American  Support  Compared.”  And  I showed  that  the 
actual  net  support  from  the  U.  S.  for  a decade  had  far  ex- 
ceeded the  English  net  support.  What  we  sent  was  all  net 
and  should  not  be  compared  with  the  English  gross  receipts. 
I included  what  American  branches,  people,  libraries,  had 
sent  to  London  not  through  our  office.  To  have  it  published 
that  America  had  raised  more  funds  for  exploration  nettled 
some  of  the  London  Comm.,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  Thomp- 
son remarked  at  the  annual  meeting  that  “the  American 
subscriptions  during  the  year  exceed  the  British.”  Long 
afterwards,  I decided  that  the  B.’s  had  distorted  Loring’s 
comments  into  what  they  asserted  he  had  declared. 

I concluded  it  best  for  me  to  go  to  London  and  try  to 
adjust  differences.  But  before  we  get  there  I will  say  a few 
things . 

The  American  Branch  disapproved  of  the  new  organiza- 
tion. Dr.  Davis  had  been  requested  by  subscribers  to  call 
for  a vote  on  three  propositions  — one  of  them  that  an  active 
worker  head  the  new  Comm.,  and  that  I head  it.  He  rec’d 


38 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


hundreds  of  signatures  and  many  scores  of  letters.  One  of 
the  signers  was  Francis  C.  Foster,  and  he  wrote  to  Miss 
Dennison  as  follows:  “The  whole  affair  seems  to  me  out- 
rageous, and  I cannot  imagine  any  American  subscriber 
lending  himself  to  such  proceedings,  or  continuing  his  sub- 
scription under  such  conditions.  I certainly  shall  not.  I 
cannot  understand  the  stupidity,  to  put  it  mildly,  of  those 
on  the  other  side,  so  ignoring  and  insulting  Dr.  Winslow’s 
past  invaluable  services.  They  have  done  him,  and  the  — 
his  — cause,  a grievous  wrong.”  It  seemed  to  me  during 
the  winter  that  Mr.  J.  C.  Gray,  one  of  the  Boston  Comm, 
who  had  not  been  a subscriber,  was  placed  in  an  unfair 
position.  He  had  gone  upon  the  Comm,  quite  ignorant  of 
the  circumstances.  And  he  had  heard  only  ex  parte  state- 
ments. I regretted  afterwards  that  I could  have  not  inter- 
viewed him  personally. 

What  was  my  opinion  of  Mrs.  B.?  That  she  was  ener- 
getic, enthusiastic,  devoted  to  “Egypt”;  high-strung,  and  not 
always  just  in  her  criticism;  demonstrative,  and  dramatic 
in  manner  at  times;  possessing  much  religious  fervor,  which, 
if  genuine,  stamped  her  as  prayerful  and  deeply  religious. 
My  first  impression  was  that  she  lacked  sincerity;  but  her 
devotion  to  the  work  and  to  aiding  me  dispelled  the  thought 
as  unjust.  I did  not  see  in  her  the  least  magnetism  — her 
mannerism  would  repel  that  — and  her  comments  upon  two 
persons,  one  a clergyman,  affected  me  unpleasantly.  But 
I sailed  for  London  in  the  belief  that  she  was  devoted  to  the 
cause,  to  my  interests,  and  to  having  our  American  Branch 
properly  administered.  Never  once  had  she  exhibited  her 
latent  consuming  fire  to  control  our  affairs. 

Incidentally  I alluded  to  my  cablegram  and  asked  Grueber 
if  my  accounts  had  ever  been  questioned.  He  was  surprised 
and  said,  “Certainly  not.”  I should  have  dismissed  the 
subject,  but  it  occurred  to  me  that  I might  wish  more  than 
my  own  statement  when  I got  back,  and  I asked  Grueber 
if  he  would  mind  writing  down  officially  what  he  had  re- 
marked in  re.  “With  pleasure”;  and  he  handed  me  this 
note : 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


39 


British  Museum,  March  29,  1897. 

Dear  Dr.  Winslow : With  regard  to  our  conversation 
this  morning,  I can  assure  you  that  the  accuracy  of  your 
accounts  as  regards  the  funds  of  the  Egypt  Exploration 
Fund  has  never  been  questioned  by  the  London  Committee. 

Yours  sincerely, 

H.  A.  Grueber,  Hon.  Treas. 

I met  the  Comm,  formally  and  discussed  matters  frankly. 
I felt  that  Thompson  might  be  hurt  regarding  my  circular 
in  which  I had  pointed  out  the  discrepancy  between  the 
formal  letter  appointing  the  Boston  Comm.,  and  his  state- 
ment of  it  in  the  annual  address.  Also,  I felt  that  Judge 
Baylis,  a member  of  the  Comm.,  might  be  offended  because 
I pointed  out  to  him  at  the  meeting  that  the  naming  of  a 
chairman  (Loring)  in  London  for  the  Boston  Comm,  was 
not  legal  in  English  law.  But  the  entire  conference  was 
amicable,  and  I thought  a mutual  favorable  impression 
was  made 

Mrs.  B.  wrote,  requesting  me  to  cable  privately  the  results 
in  Boston.  I cabled : “ Loring  illegally  appointed  Chairman 
— nothing  definitely  settled.”  She  cabled  me,  blindly,  to 
cable  something  about  books,  and  I cabled  back  quite  in  the 
dark  as  to  her  object.  The  use  she  made  of  my  cablegrams 
will  appear  in  Part  II,  which  will  be  a revelation,  doubtless, 
to  many  subscribers. 


40 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


PART  II. 

DUPLICITY  APPEARS. 

1.  The  Loring  Circular.  Before  I left  Boston  for  London 
I said  to  Mrs.  B.,  “Suppose  the  Boston  Comm,  publish  a/ 
circular  during  my  absence?”  She  replied  that  she  would 
not  send  it  to  subscribers  during  my  absence.  As  I had 
hopes  of  adjusting  matters,  I begged  her  to  refrain  from  doing 
anything  to  make  a settlement  impossible.  On  my  return 
I found  that  a circular  had  gone  out,  and  she  said  that  she 
had  mailed  it.  Her  explanation  was:  “Loring  thinks  I 
sent  the  circular  to  all  the  subscribers,  but  I sent  it  to  a 
selected  list  only,  mostly  your  friends,  and  here  is  the  list.” 
She  presented  me  with  the  list,  in  her  own  writing,  and 
laughed  as  she  described  the  circular  as  the  great  literary 
work  of  Loring’s  life!  I told  her  this  was  playing  double, 
and  that  I could  not  approve  of  it.  Space  is  wanting  to 
criticise  the  circular.  Prof.  Beecher  of  Auburn  Theol. 
Sem’y  wrote  to  the  Boston  Committee:  “Your  circular  in 
explanation  of  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  matters  is  at  hand. 
It  is  disingenuous.  It  condemns  itself.  Better  apologize 
for  the  mistake  that  has  been  made,  and  rectify  it.” 

George  Foster  Peabody,  of  New  York,  had  written  to 
me  : “As  one  of  the  more  recent  subscribers  to  the  E.  E. 
Fund,  for  which  you  have  labored  so  steadfastly,  I beg  to 
thank  you  for  the  (published)  letter  setting  forth  the 
entirely  justifying  comparison  of  the  contributions  from 
England  and  America.  I think  the  action  of  the  Eng- 
lish Comm.,  as  I gather  from  your  report,  was  simply  an 
outrage.  I am  astonished  that  Gen.  Loring  should  have 
been  a party  to  any  such  proceeding.  I think  that  the 
American  subscribers  should  withhold  their  subscriptions 
until  matters  are  put  on  a proper  basis.” 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


41 


Charles  Eliot  Norton,  D.C.L.,  of  Harvard,  wrote  to 
one  who  had  assisted  me • “I  am  truly  sorry  for  the  trouble 
which  has  arisen  concerning  the  future  management  of  the 
Fund,  and  I entirely  agree  with  you  that,  in  order  to  ensure 
its  future  success,  the  management  of  it  should  remain  prac- 
tically in  the  hands  of  Dr.  Winslow.” 

How  much  more  the  words  of  Peabody  and  Norton  apply 
to  now  than  to  then!  Then,  the  London  Comm,  itself 
appointed  a Comm.,  including  myself  upon  it;  now,  one  per- 
son, not  even  a subscriber,  selects  the  Boston  Comm. ; omits 
my  name  upon  it;  and  even  my  honorary  post  of  V.  P.,  at 
his  request,  has  been  cancelled.  Nor  can  this  one  person 
devote  any  time  or  labor  to  the  cause! 

2.  The  Two  Cablegrams.  I found  that  Mrs.  B.  had  shown 
to  Loring  the  private  cablegram  which  she  had  requested 
me  to  send  to  her.  She  claimed  it  was  done  to  give  her  a 
chance  to  find  out  “what  Loring  was  up  to.”  I saw  at  the 
office  two  notes  from  Lane  respecting  his  authority  (as  treas- 
urer) over  the  books,  and,  by  close  questioning  her,  I ascer- 
tained that  her  purpose  in  cabling  me  was  to  get  authority 
for  removing  the  books  should  she  wish  to  do  so.  I knew 
that  she  disliked  Lane  exceedingly.  This  seeming  action 
on  my  part  naturally  turned  him  all  the  more  against  me. 
I spoke  earnestly  to  Mrs.  B.  of  my  disapproval  of  all  such 
double  dealing.  She  defended  it  on  the  simple  ground  of 
necessity.  Such  was  my  disquiet  that  I purposed  a note 
to  Loring  asking  for  an  interview.  But  Cotton  came ! Had 
he  arrived  a week  later,  this  narrative  probably  had  never 
been  written.  He  took  charge  of  affairs  at  once.  He  was 
in  Boston  two  or  three  days  before  seeing  me.  He  had 
already  interviewed  a number  of  persons.  I think  he  was 
at  the  office  before  he  called  on  me. 

To  illustrate  “double  dealing,”  I anticipate  by  quoting 
from  two  notes  received  by  me  a year  later.  Miss  Dennison 
had  seen  much  of  Mrs.  B.  She  called  on  Foster  when  she 
saw  Mrs.  B.  was  giving  me  much  trouble,  and  cautioned 
him  regarding  her.  He  spoke  indignantly  to  me  of  her 
remarks  about  “that  devoted  Christian  woman.”  I wrote 


42 


THE  TEUTH  ABOUT 


to  Miss  Dennison,  and  she  replied  (Jan.  10,  1898):  “It  is 
not  my  habit  to  deal  in  insinuations,  and  I said  plainly  that 
Mrs.  B.  was  the  most  thorough  hypocrite  it  had  ever  been 
my  misfortune  to  meet,  and  I mentioned  as  an  example  the 
very  disrespectful  way  in  which  she  would  speak  of  Gen. 
Loring  while  all  the  time  I knew  that  she  was  ingratiat- 
ing herself  with  him  because  she  wanted  favors  from  him.” 
Miss  Dennison  was  highly  recommended  by  Mr.  Torbert, 
the  assistant  of  Mr.  (now  Bishop)  Brent,  rector  of  St.  Ste- 
phen’s Church,  in  Boston.  Miss  Grafflin,  a local  Sec’y,  had 
rec’d  from  Mrs.  B.  earnest  letters  against  Loring  and 
favoring  my  interests.  Miss  G.  was  not  a little  surprised 
to  have  a fierce  attack  upon  me  from  her:  “She  begins  the 
subject,”  writes  Miss  G.,  “by  accusing  you  of  using  the 
same  methods  to  remove  her  from  office  that  you  did  against 
the  Boston  Comm.  Now  she  endorsed  your  methods  in 
that  connection,  and  this  is  a distinct  note  of  insincerity.” 

In  August,  ’97,  but  four  months  after  Cotton’s  visit, 
I informed  Dr.  Davis  of  my  anxieties  respecting  Mrs.  B.’s 
course  since  her  appointment  from  London.  In  his  reply 
was  this  sentence : “ But  for  her  I firmly  believe  that  Loring 
would  have  been  in  power.  And  yet  she  holds  his  friend- 
ship. A truly  remarkable  woman,  and  a mystery.” 

COTTON  IN  BOSTON. 

What  did  Mr.  Cotton  accomplish?  Two  things:  the  re- 
tirement of  the  Boston  Comm. ; an  alliance,  utterly  unknown 
to  me  at  the  time,  with  Mrs.  B. 

He  came  over  to  maintain  the  Loring  Comm.,  and  London 
expected  him  to  do  it.  But  he  did  not  propose  any  con- 
ference for  explanation,  or  even  that  I should  meet  Loring 
and  talk  the  matter  over.  On  my  part,  I simply  explained 
the  case  further  to  him.  He  was  here  some  ten  days  and 
took  efficient  steps  to  cause  the  Comm,  to  retire.  The  Comm, 
would  resign,  he  said,  if  I would  resign  with  them,  and  would 
not  answer  their  circular,  nor  call  for  any  vote  of  the  sub- 
scribers. The  Loring  Comm,  would  nominate  a Sec’y  to 
London,  and  would  I nominate  an  Hon.  Treasurer?  He 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


43 


added  that  Loring  and  his  associates  would  nominate  Mrs. 
B.  as  Sec’y,  and,  evidently  noting  my  surprise,  said  she  was 
friendly  to  me,  and  I ought  to  be  pleased  with  the  arrange- 
ments he  had  planned. 

Two  persons  having  declined  to  serve,  and  seeing  Foster’s 
name  on  our  roll,  and  recalling  his  “strenuous”  letter,  I 
went  to  him.  He  seemed  to  hesitate;  did  not  wish  any 
more  work  at  his  age.  I told  him  we  needed  an  Hon.  Treas. 
simply  to  “take  care  of  the  funds”  — could  he  serve  tempo- 
rarily? Later  he  said,  “If  I can  have  no  labors  or  cares 
other  than  as  a curator  of  the  funds  I will  accept.  Next 
fall,  we  can  see  whether  I had  better  continue.”  The  under- 
standing was  explicit  — he  was  not  to  be  burdened  in  the 
least  with  the  cares  of  the  Boston  Office,  which  would  devolve 
entirely  upon  the  Sec’y  and  myself.  This  point  should  be 
made  clear  to  my  readers.  In  Sept.,  ’97,  he  wrote  to  me: 
“My  only  care  is  to  guard  any  funds  coming  into  my  hands, 
not  to  instruct  others  as  to  their  duties.”  “When  you  urged 
me  to  accept  the  position  of  Hon.  Treas.  I was  only  to  have 
charge  of  the  funds,  and  little  or  no  work  to  do,  and  I reluc- 
tantly so  assented.”  In  Oct.,  ’98,  he  objected  to  paying  a 
small  bill  (approved  of  later  by  the  Hon.  Treas.  in  London), 
and  I wrote  him  that  my  duties  as  Hon.  Sec’y  gave  me  the 
right  to  incur  some  expenses,  etc.  He  replied:  “I  entirely 
disclaim  all  intention  of  determining  your  official  duties. 
I am  simply,  as  you  say,  ‘curator  of  the  funds.’  ” 

Before  I signed  the  compact  of  resignation  I questioned 
Cotton  closely  upon  two  points:  first,  my  office  of  V.  P. 
He  said  that  Lane  urged  that  the  V.  P.  should  lapse  with 
our  resignation  as  would  my  office  of  Hon.  Sec’y,  but  that 
he  assured  Lane  that  was  impossible  — the  V.  P.  was  an 
original  appointment  from  London,  and  had  not  lapsed  with 
the  appointment  of  the  Boston  Comm.,  and  was  really  not 
a part  of  the  Boston  Office.  I told  Cotton  that  I depended 
upon  being  reappointed  Hon.  Sec’y.  His  reply  was,  “We 
must  let  the  Comm,  go  with  the  least  friction,  and  you  must 
be  content  to  drop  the  use  of  that  title  for  the  present.  Later 
on,  you  will  be  reappointed.  We  must  let  things  cool  down 
just  now.”  (My  memoranda.) 


44 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


Soon  after  I asked  Cotton  what  my  status  would  be  till 
reappointed  Hon.  Sec’y.  “Magnify  your  office  of  V.  P.; 
make  it  cover  the  authority  you  need  at  the  Office.”  He 
then  spoke  to  me  of  Mrs.  B.’s  position  as  being  clerical  and 
continuing  just  the  same.  “ I hope  you  will  direct  and  advise 
Mrs.  B.  all  you  can,  as  needed.”  Similar  remarks  were 
made  by  him  at  the  office,  and  Mrs.  B.  made  no  objection. 
But  I determined  to  have  from  Cotton  a written  statement 
regarding  my  reappointment;  nor  would  I have  signed  the 
compact  had  he  refused.  I had  rec’d  him  frankly,  and 
afforded  him  every  facility  in  my  power  to  aid  him  in  his 
duties  as  “minister  plenipotentiary.”  But  there  seemed 
to  be  diplomacy  of  some  kind  in  the  air.  He  wished  me  to 
“keep  quiet”  about  the  Hon.  Sec’yship,  and  yet  it  was  to 
be  restored.  He  wished  me  to  “ magnify  ” (his  exact  word) 
my  V.  P.  in  my  duties.  I had  been  surprised  at  the  ease 
with  which  the  Loring  Comm,  was  dispossessed,  especially, 
as  Mrs.  B.  informed  me,  on  my  return,  that  not  one  of  the 
Comm,  had  the  least  idea  of  resigning.  (They  had  rec’d 
every  assurance  of  hearty  support  from  London  as  I knew.) 
During  his  ten  days  in  Boston,  Cotton  was  daily,  sometimes 
twice  a day,  at  the  office.  Mr.  B.  commented  on  it  with 
pride,  and  as  an  evidence  of  Mrs.  B.’s  great  influence.  He 
saw  that  I observed  the  smell  of  tobacco  in  her  rooms,  and 
he  remarked  that  Cotton  asked  the  privilege  of  smoking 
cigarettes  during  his  calls,  and,  of  course,  Mrs.  B.  could  not 
refuse  the  representative  of  the  London  Comm.  I dislike 
personalities  in  this  narrative,  but  I must  here  cast  all  pos- 
sible light  upon  his  alliance  with  Mrs.  B.  I asked  Cotton 
for  the  written  statement  already  mentioned.  He  wrote 
this  letter 

Young’s  Hotel,  Boston,  April  23,  1897. 

Dear  Dr.  Winslow:  In  view  of  the  joint  resignation  of  the  American 
Committee,  which  I may  now  consider  to  be  a settled  business,  it  is 
my  duty  as  representing  the  English  Committee,  to  express  my  grate- 
ful sense  of  the  frank  and  cordial  manner  in  which  you  have  met  me, 
in  my  endeavors  to  arrive  at  an  amicable  settlement  of  the  recent 
differences. 

At  the  same  time,  I must  assure  you  of  the  good  will  which  all  the 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


45 


members  of  the  Fund  in  England  entertain  towards  you  for  your 
single-handed  and  enthusiastic  services  for  the  prosperity  of  the  Fund 
in  the  United  States,  dating  from  the  first  organization  under  Miss 
Amelia  B.  Edwards. 

In  particular,  I wish  to  convey  to  you  my  absolute  conviction  that 
the  London  Committee  never  contemplated,  and  never  will  contem- 
plate, any  arrangement  by  which  you  will  cease  to  be  Vice-President 
of  the  Fund  in  the  United  States. 

Your  position  as  Honorary  Secretary  for  America  stands  in  a difi 
ferent  position.  That  office  you  now  hold  by  appointment  of  the 
American  Committee,  with  the  additional  sanction  of  a confirmation 
from  England.  The  joint  resignation  of  the  American  Committee 
carries  with  it  the  lapse  of  that  appointment.  And  it  would  not  be 
consistent  with  the  spirit  of  our  arrangement,  to  take  advantage  of 
the  English  confirmation  as  an  independent  and  continuing  appoint- 
ment. 

This,  however,  I will  say : that  I shall  make  it  a matter  of  personal 
obligation  on  myself  that,  when  I return  to  London,  I should  press 
on  the  Committee,  as  being  the  fulfilment  of  an  honorable  understand- 
ing between  you  and  me,  to  continue  your  former  appointment  as 
Honorary  Secretary  for  America,  as  from  the  date  of  the  next  annual 
meeting  of  the  subscribers  of  the  Fund,  which  will  probably  be  held 
in  November,  1897. 

HAD  COTTON  PLAYED  A DOUBLE  PART? 

1.  Consider,  first,  the  status  of  Mrs.  B.  and  myself.  Her 
nomination  as  Sec’y  (by  the  Loring  Comm.)  was  confirmed 
in  May  by  the  London  Comm.  After  my  circular  of  appeal 
had  gone  forth,  after  I had  devoted  two  weeks  of  toil  in  N. 
Y.  for  the  Fund,  after  I had  written  personally  300  letters 
and  raised  $2,000,  after  she  had  secured  Biblia  by  artifice; 
in  a word,  only  after  she  was  fully  intrenched  did  she  so 
much  as  hint  that  she  was  other  than  the  Sec’y  in  the  Office 
as  she  was  under  the  Loring  Comm.  Then  she  declared  that 
she  was  to  follow  her  judgment  in  all  things ! Even  in  writ- 
ing she  asserted  this.  A note  from  her  said:  “I  have  been 
fully  instructed  in  regard  to  my  duties  by  Mr.  Cotton.  My 
directions  were  in  all  matters  to  use  my  own  judgment,  and 
when  I could  not  decide  for  myself  to  consult  with  you  if 
it  seemed  best,  but  to  ask  advice  from  London  in  any  case 
of  importance.”  But,  to  soften  the  blow  of  what  she  knew 


46 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


was  a surprise  to  me,  the  note  said:  “I  did  not  think  to  ever 
tell  you,  for  I cared  so  little  for  power  (sic)  or  dignity,  or 
authority,  that  I was  well  content  that  you  should  regard 
me  as  in  the  same  position  as  my  predecessors.”  No,  in- 
deed, she  “did  not  think  to  tell”  me  this  when  Cotton  was 
in  Boston,  but  she  did  think  to  allow  him  to  tell  me  the 
reverse.  Her  note  to  me  was  dated  July  26,  and  on  July  27 
she  wrote  to  Cotton,  for  on  Aug.  6 he  replied  to  her,  and 
a copy  of  his  reply  was  sent  to  me  by  her.  He  wrote  this: 
. . . “You  ask  me  to  define  your  position  as  Sec’y.  Your 
appointment  was  made  by  the  London  Comm.,  in  pursuance 
of  the  understanding  which  led  to  the  joint  resignation  of 
the  Boston  Comm.  The  essence  of  that  understanding  was 
that  the  Sec’y  and  Hon.  Treas.  should  constitute  the  Boston 
Office.  They  are  responsible  only  to  the  London  Comm., 
who  on  their  part  will  communicate  officially  only  with  them. 
. . . It  is  true  that  your  position  is  necessarily  affected  by 
the  conspicuous  place  which  Dr.  Winslow  has  long  held,  owing 
to  his  unique  services  to  the  Fund.  . . . You  are  not  his 
subordinate,  nor  bound  to  take  orders  from  him.” 

Now  had  Cotton  “instructed”  Mrs.  B.  thus  when  he  was 
in  Boston  ? On  Aug.  26  she  wrote  to  me : “ The  letter  from 
Mr.  Cotton  to  which  I referred  is  the  one  sent  you,  dated  Aug. 
6.  Its  contents,  only  the  written  definition  of  my  position 
as  verbally  stated  to  me  during  his  visit  in  Boston.” 

“The  Secretary  and  Hon.  Treas.  constituted  the  Boston 
Office!”  What  was  I?  Of  what  use  my  “conspicuous 
place  ” and  “ unique  services  ” ? I had  already  written  to 
Grueber  regarding  Mrs.  B.’s  efforts  to  control  our  affairs. 
On  Aug.  18  Cotton  wrote  that  Grueber  had  forwarded  the 
note  to  him.  He  said:  “It  is  right  that  you  should  know 
that,  in  response  to  a pressing  appeal  from  Mrs.  B.,  I sent  her 
an  official  letter*  defining  her  position  as  Secretary.”  An 
official  statement,  therefore,  was  that  definition  of  her  status ! 
But  on  Aug.  27  I had  written  a very  pointed  letter  to  Cotton 
— reminding  him  of  what  our  subscribers  would  think  if 
such  discrepancies  saw  the  light.  On  Sept.  8 he  replied:  . . . 


Simply  bis  views.  No  one  authorized  his  reply. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


47 


“ I admit  that  some  of  the  expressions  in  my  official  letter 
to  Mrs.  B.  were  not  the  same  as  I should  have  used  if  I had 
been  writing  to  define  your  position  as  V.  P.  I regard  you 
as  the  chief  representative  of  the  Fund  in  the  U.  S.,  empow- 
ered to  issue  circulars,  and  to  take  action  on  your  own  re- 
sponsibility about  the  general  affairs  of  the  Fund.  To- 
gether with  the  Sec’y  and  Hon.  Treas.  you  constitute  the 
American  (or  Boston)  Office.  ...  I apprehend  that  your 
position  would  not  be  affected  if  you  were  reappointed  Hon. 
Sec’y  for  America.  You  would  hardly  become  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  Fund  to  a greater  extent  than  you  are  now; 
and  your  position  towards  the  Sec’y  and  the  Hon.  Treas. 
would  be  but  slightly  changed.  So  long  as  you  worked 
harmoniously  with  them,  all  the  public  reputation  of  the 
Fund  would  remain  in  your  hands.  Circulars  would  be 
drafted  by  you,  and  signed  in  your  name;  while  the  daily 
clerical  work  would  be  conducted  by  the  Sec’y.  All  impor- 
tant business  would  be  yours.” 

Was  this  a bid  for  me  to  remain  satisfied  simply  as  V.  P.? 
Had  “the  Egyptian  Princess”  cast  a further  spell  upon 
Cotton?  As  I afterwards  knew,  she  tried  to  prevent  my 
reappointment,  and  then  to  make  it  a farce. 

2.  Consider,  now,  my  reappointment  as  Hon.  Sec’y  — 
any  double  dealing  here?  That  summer  proved  the  neces- 
sity of  my  reappointment.  In  writing  to  Foster  I referred 
to  my  anticipated  reappointment.  His  reply  contained 
these  words:  “The  London  Comm,  ought  not  to  ignore  the 
agreement  of  the  Comm,  of  four  (Loring,  Lane,  Gray,  Mrs. 
Whitman)  by  restoring  the  title.”  I responded  that  Cotton 
had  assured  me  that  I would  be  reappointed.  Who  told 
him  I was  not  to  be  reappointed?  Foster  rejoined:  “Gen. 
Loring  was  the  one  who  told  me  it  was  one  of  the  chief  stipu- 
lations in  the  resignation  of  the  Comm,  of  four,  and  trouble 
will  follow  its  restoration.  . . . We  have  a very  efficient, 
capable,  and  zealous  Sec’y  in  Mrs.  B.”  This  was  Aug.  24. 

In  Oct.  I was  appointed  Hon.  Sec’y.  I called  on  Loring; 
he  said  that  Cotton  fully  agreed  to  the  stipulation  that 
I was  not  to  be  made  Hon.  Sec’y.  He  could  not  see  how 


48 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


such  a mistake  could  be  made.  In  justice  to  Cotton,  I 
quote  from  his  note  to  me : “ I admit  that  I never  told  Gen. 
Loring  of  my  intention  to  support  your  appointment  (prac- 
tically thought  not  technically  a reappointment)  to  the 
office.  ...  On  the  other  hand,  I most  strongly  maintain 
that  I never  gave  Gen.  Loring  to  understand  that  the  Ameri- 
can Hon.  Secretaryship  would  permanently  lapse.”  The 
question,  however,  relates  to  just  one  person,  myself.  All  the 
members  of  the  Loring  Comm,  (except  myself)  understood 
that  1 was  not  to  be  made  Hon.  Sec’y  — the  permanent 
lapsing  of  the  office  itself  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question 
— and  Cotton  only  declares  that  he  did  not  inform  Loring 
of  his  intention  to  get  me  reappointed. 

In  the  light  of  subsequent  events,  I cannot  doubt  but  that 
Cotton  played  a double  part  regarding  both  my  status  and 
my  reappointment.  And  when  this  entire  narrative  shall 
have  been  read  by  subscribers  I feel  sure  that  many  of  them 
will  agree  with  me  on  the  former  of  two  things,  viz.,  that 
Cotton  and  Mrs.  B.  formed  an  alliance  during  his  Boston 
visit.  Of  the  other  matter,  my  opinion  is  that  he  was  dere- 
lict in  modifying  (if  not  changing)  his  determination  to 
serve  the  cause  of  the  English  Comm.  He  found  that,  in 
the  judgment  of  some  of  the  Boston  subscribers,  a mistake 
had  been  made  by  the  London  Comm.,  but  a subtle  and  the 
effective  cause  of  his  dereliction  was  the  'personal  in- 
fluence of  Mrs.  B.,  whose  one  aim  was  the  retirement  of  the 
Loring  Comm.  To  have  Loring  retained  in  power,  and  a 
Comm,  to  back  him  up,  meant  to  her  no  control  at 
all  of  affairs;  to  have  Winslow  an  appointee,  like  herself, 
from  London,  and  to  secure  Cotton  as  an  ally,  afforded  her 
ambition  a field  for  manoeuvres  and  possible  victory.  Were 
Cotton  earnest  for  the  London  Comm,  he  would  at  least 
have  had  Cotton,  Loring,  Winslow,  confer  together,  and  the 
last  named  would  have  questioned  Loring  so  directly  that 
the  duplicity  of  Mrs.  B.  would  have  been  seen.  For  either 
Loring  or  she  had  not  spoken  the  truth;  and  either  Lane  or 
she  had  not  spoken  the  truth  — the  truth  on  matters  of  most 
serious  import.  I judge  Cotton  from  a proper  standard. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


49 


Call  his  conduct  “diplomacy,”  but  it  is  a diplomacy  not 
suited  to  a learned  society. 

3.  Was  Foster  impartial,  and  frank  towards  me?  On 
Aug.  24  he  had  written  to  me  that  the  post  of  Hon.  Sec’y. 
was  not  necessary.  “You  are  the  widely  known  and  ac- 
knowledged head  and  front  of  the  E.  E.  Association  in  this 
country.  . . . You  can  do  just  as  much  without  the  mere 
title,  since  you  are  Vice  President.”  But  he  had  already 
read  the  official  letter  from  Cotton  defining  the  authority 
of  himself  and  Mrs.  B.;  stating  that  Foster  and  she  “con- 
stituted the  Boston  Office,”  and  “while  Mr.  Foster  is  supreme 
in  financial  affairs  you  are  equally  so  in  conducting  the 
ordinary  business  of  the  Office,  subject  only  to  your  own 
discretion  and  your  sense  of  loyalty.”  I anticipate  by  re- 
marking that  subsequently  he  not  only  allowed  this  letter 
to  be  authoritative  (as  we  shall  see),  but  he  relied  on  what- 
ever Cotton  advised  or  directed.  Consequently,  I submit 
that  Foster  was  not  impartial  or  frank  towards  me  in  trying 
to  make  me  think  that  a V.  P.  would  include  all  necessary 
authority.  Cotton’s  definition  simply  put  the  Sec’y  and 
Hon.  Treas.  in  charge  of  the  Office;  in  fact,  I did  not  belong 
to  the  Office  at  all! 

A FEW  OCCURRENCES. 

A few  occurrences  will  now  be  stated , which  form  a fitting 
sequel  to  the  section,  “Duplicity  Appears.” 

1.  Early  that  summer  a N.  Y.  man  desired  to  be 
made  a local  Sec’y.  Mrs.  B.  corresponded  with  him  after 
I had  replied  to  him.  I deferred  action  in  order  to  make 
inquiries  about  him.  But  Mrs.  B.,  for  some  reason  anxious 
to  have  him  appointed,  announced  to  him  his  appointment. 
She  told  me  she  could  not  take  it  back,  and  would  not  repeat 
the  blunder.  So,  the  appointment  stood.  Looking  over 
a pile  of  official  notes  I came  upon  one  from  the  appointee 
assailing  Rev.  Dr.  Schauffler  for  advising  us  to  go  slow  in 
making  him  a local  Sec’y.  I questioned  Mrs.  B.  closely, 
to  find  that  she  had  betrayed  the  confidence  of  Schauffler 
by  informing  this  man  of  his  advice  to  us.  She  either  be- 


50 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


trayed  astonishing  ignorance  of  the  proprieties  of  the  office 
she  held,  or  she  was  trying  to  enlist  this  man  as  her  ally. 

2.  Dr.  Davis  had  long  wished  me  to  be  associate  Editor 
of  Biblia.  He  corresponded  with  Mrs.  B.  about  her  pub- 
lishing it,  and  in  Boston.  She  and  I discussed  this  plan 
thoroughly,  and  decided  that  her  duties  as  Sec’y  would  not 
permit  of  it.  She  took  the  early  morning  train  for  Meri- 
den, Conn.,  and  closed  the  deal.  Hearing  of  this  later,  I 
asked  her  for  an  explanation.  Her  reply  was:  “It  came 
to  me  as  an  inspiration  that  night,  as  things  often  come 
in  that  way.”  I wrote  to  Dr.  Davis,  and  he  replied:  “When 
Mrs.  B.  came  here  to  talk  about  Biblia  I was  led  to  infer 
that  there  was  the  most  perfect  harmony,  and  that  y®u 
were  to  assist  her  in  booming  Biblia.  Why  she  is  so  secre- 
tive to  me,  I do  not  know.” 

3.  Grueber  sent  me  proofs  of  the  English  circular  of  the 
“Graeco-Roman  Branch”  as  a basis  for  our  own  circular. 
He  marked  Hon.  Sec’y  U.  S.  A.  upon  it.  I mentioned  this 
fact  to  Mrs.  B.,  but  did  not  request  her  to  use  that  title  for 
me.  Instead  of  consulting  me  (in  New  Hampshire),  she 
cabled  to  London  if  that  title  was  to  be  used.  When  her 
letter’arrived  saying  she  had  cabled,  I wrote  her  that  she 
should  first  have  written  to  me.  “I  had  a perfect  right  to 
cable,”  she  replied.  “ . . . Besides,  I laid  the  whole  case 
before  Mr.  Foster,  and  he  told  me  to  quote  him  to  you  as 
saying  I could  do  no  otherwise.  He  favored  the  cablegram, 
in  fact  said  he  regarded  it  as  necessary.”  I asked  Foster 
if  he  had  advised  cabling;  he  wrote:  “I  advised  doing 
nothing  until  the  corrected  ones  (Eng.  circulars)  were 
rec’d,  with  instructions  and  orders  which  I thought  she 
must  follow.”  She  said  Davis  favored  her  cabling.  He 
replied  to  me:  “I  do  not  see  how  Mrs.  B.  could  cable  on  my 
advice.”  In  the  after-light  cast  upon  her  character  I knew 
later  what  I had  just  begun  to  see:  the  “inwardness”  of 
her  object  was  this, — to  have  me  appear  to  London  regardless 
of  my  understanding  with  Cotton,  that  the  Hon.  Secretaryship 
was  in  abeyance;  to  Foster,  as  pushing  myself  forward  to  rule, 
and  to  have  her  loyalty  to  the  London  Comm,  be  made  mani- 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


51 


fest,  and  cause  her  conscientious  zeal  to  impress  Foster.  His 
note  to  me  said : “ I feel  she  is  anxious  to  do  right,  and  is  open 
to  advice,  etc.”  To  me  she  replied,  enlarging  upon  the  law 
of  righteousness:  “The  law  is  upon  my  heart.  Who,  my 
friend,  is  to  blame  if  I learn  lessons  so  well  that  they  rule  my 
actions  — protect  me  from  the  appearance  of  evil  as  a wall 
of  fire?  Why,  my  pastor  who  taught  me  must  be  blamed, 
and  not  I,  his  loving  pupil.”  In  1902  a lady  of  Tremont 
Temple  spoke  to  me  of  her  rare  faculty  of  “insinuation,” 
and  another  of  the  great  fervor  of  her  prayers  after  her  im- 
mersion and  “profession”  in  1888.  By  her  “insinuation” 
I had  supposed  her  still  a member  of  that  congregation  in 
1897;  and  the  “fervors,”  as  will  appear,  must  have  been 
astonishing  evidences  of  pure  and  sincere  piety. 

4.  In  Sept.,  1897,  I returned  to  Boston  determined  to 
speak  plainly  to  this  Sec’y,  and  to  ask  London  for  a defini- 
tion of  my  authority.  After  greeting  her,  reference  was 
made  to  a new  photograph  of  herself  which  she  had  enclosed 
to  me  a little  before.  She  said:  “Please  don’t  allude  to  it 
before  my  husband;  he  is  just  now  very  irritable.”  This 
was  a new  “insight”  for  me,  but  I simply  answered,  “I  do 
not  accept  photographs  under  any  such  circumstances.”  Mrs. 
Winslow  thought  I should  return  the  photo,  and  I did  so 
soon  after.  During  my  next  call  Mrs.  B.  alluded  to  “ those 
papers”  relating  to  Loring,  Lane,  etc.,  and  hinted  that  they 
were  now  of  no  use  and  had  better  be  destroyed.  I spoke 
plainly  but  kindly  to  her  upon  the  need  of  straightforward 
dealing  with  me  in  our  work.  “I  have  lost  confidence  in 
you,  but  you  can  regain  it  by  open  and  fair  dealing  with 
me.”  She  said  “she  owed  her  position  to  Loring,  and  what 
had  I ever  done  for  her  ? She  toiled  to  get  rid  of  that  Comm., 
I was  again  at  the  head,  and  under  obligations  to  her.” 
She  said,  “You  must  take  that  back,”  and  she  became 
dramatic  in  her  manner.  Some  days  later,  after  we  had 
transacted  business  and  she  had  most  amiably  declared 
that  “all  should  go  on  nicely  now,”  she  said  that  “those 
Loring  and  other  papers”  were  of  no  value  now,  had  better 
be  destroyed,  and  would  I bring  them  to  her?  I replied, 


52 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


“Not  now  — perhaps  later  on.”  Then  she  used  all  her  per- 
suasive power,  and  promised  devotion  to  the  cause  and  my 
interests.  I was  reflecting  a minute  or  two  before  replying, 
when  she  used  every  inducement  to  have  me  promise  to 
return  the  papers.  My  reply  was  decisive.  She  flared  up, 
became  sullen;  I turned  to  the  desk  to  finish  a little  business, 
and  then  left. 

“Those  Loring  and  other  papers”  are  particularly  re- 
ferred to  in  the  section,  “What  Caused  the  Split?”  Mr.  B., 
some  time  later,  remarked  to  me  that  he  had  given  me  a 
statement  just  to  aid  me  in  “ getting  rid  of  Loring,”  and  he 
would  like  to  have  back  the  paper.  Mrs.  B.,  always  irregular 
in  her  methods  of  work  and  hours,  was  absent  on  several 
successive  calls  which  I had  to  make  — it  must  never  be  for- 
gotten that  the  entire  machinery  was  in  her  hands — records, 
data,  addresses  — and  when  I spoke  to  her  about  her  irregu- 
larities, I got  only  evasive  answers.  When  my  appoint- 
ment as  Hon.  Sec’y  arrived,  she  heartily  congratulated  me, 
and,  some  time  later,  gave  me  a singular  reason  for  her  irreg- 
ular hours,  which  reason,  however,  harmonized  with  remarks 
she  had  made  during  the  preceding  winter  in  her  criticisms 
of  two  persons. 

5.  My  Reappointment.  The  London  Comm,  wisely 
thought  their  definition  of  our  duties  as  Hon.  Sec’y,  Hon. 
Treas.,  Sec’y,  should  be  indorsed  by  us  all  to  avoid  future 
dissent  by  any  one  of  us  from  the  action  of  the  Comm.  I 
met  Mrs.  B.’s  gracious  congratulation  in  a kindly  spirit, 
telling  her  that  my  general  control  would  still  leave  her 
the  largest  possible  liberty  in  the  daily  office  work,  but  I 
told  her  she  must  deal  frankly  with  me  in  all  matters.  This 
was  mid-October.  On  Nov.  3,  Grueber  wrote  to  me:  “She 
does  not  like  your  having  a general  control  of  matters  con- 
nected with  the  Office.  I do  not  see  how  you  are  to  be  at 
the  head  of  the  E.  E.  F.  in  the  U.  S.  without  knowing  all  that 
is  going  on  at  the  Office.  ...  Is  your  position  to  be  a reality 
or  a farce?  If  a reality,  then  you  must  know  what  goes  on.” 
Now,  Mrs.  B.  had  written  Grueber  several  weeks  before 
regarding  my  reappointment  — its  probability,  etc.  In 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


53 


his  answer  Grueber  had  said:  “I  shall  bring  the  matter  up 
as  soon  as  possible,  as  I consider  Dr.  Winslow  should  have 
controlling  power,  as  formerly.”  To  show  to  me  her  “hearty 
desire”  to  have  me  reinstated,  she  had  enclosed  to  me  Grueb- 
er’s  note,  and  her  own  letter  contains  this  sentence : “ I have 
received  the  enclosed  reply  from  Mr.  Grueber,  which  is  en- 
tirely satisfactory  to  me,  as  I judge  it  also  will  be  to  you.  . . . 
I desire  everything  that  can  by  any  possibility  be  produc- 
tive of  good  for  the  noble  cause  we  love.”  Comment  un- 
necessary. Foster  also  delayed  his  approval,  telling  me: 
“It  is  of  no  use  for  me  to  sign  it  unless  she  does.”  He  had 
already  quite  passed  under,  not  her  “general  control,”  but 
her  special  control!  I wrote  to  him  when  an  earnest  note 
from  London  pressed  the  importance  of  our  united  approval, 
and  he  replied:  “Subscribers  or  those  specially  interested 
know  that  you  are  now  Hon.  Sec’y,  and  that  is  all  that  is 
necessary  for  them.”  But  I had  no  intention  of  posing  as 
Hon.  Sec’y  without  being  so  de  facto  as  well  as  de  jure.  Cot- 
ton also  wrote  to  me  that  the  Annual  Report  was  in  the 
printer’s  hands,  and  the  names  of  the  Boston  Office  should 
go  in  it.  I had  written  most  decided  letters  to  London  upon 
the  necessity  of  my  having  the  post  of  Hon.  Sec’y,  and,  to 
Cotton’s  credit,  I believe  he  advised  Mrs.  B.  to  give  her 
approval  of  my  reappointment.  At  any  rate,  I heard  her 
say  in  early  Jan.  that  she  “approved”  of  it  only  because 
Cotton  “advised”  it.  Had  the  London  Comm,  refused  to 
appoint  me  Hon.  Sec’y,  or  to  define  my  authority,  I should 
have  mailed  to  every  local  Sec’y  a copy  of  Cotton’s  agree- 
ment with  me,  and  stated,  briefly,  the  necessity  of  my  ap- 
pointment as  Hon.  Sec’y.  He  knew  my  purpose. 

UNPLEASANT  DISCOVERIES. 

1.  This  incident  does  not  rest  on  documentary  proof  in 
my  possession.  Calling  upon  Foster  on  a Fund  matter, 
he  said  he  was  busy  for  a few  minutes,  and  placed  a letter 
from  Cotton  in  my  hands  with  the  remark  that  he  spoke 
of  the  matter.  I came  upon  a sentence  like  this:  “I  hear 
from  Mrs.  B.  of  troubles  ahead  in  the  Office,  and  in  such 


54 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


a case  you  can  rely  on  my  support.”  Foster  took  up  the 
letter  as  if  not  familiar  with  all  its  contents.  Nor  did  he 
find  the  exact  place  he  wished  at  once.  He  read  a portion 
of  the  above  sentence,  and  then  abruptly  passed  over  it. 
I made  no  comment,  but  was  keenly  impressed  with  such 
a remark. 

2.  In  mid-November  Mr.  B.  said  to  me  at  the  Office, 

“That has  come  on  from  N.  Y.  and  is  constantly  with 

Mrs.  B.  He  has  gone  out  with  Mrs.  B.  He  was  also  out 
■with  her  last  evening.”  A Baptist  minister  also  called  at 
the  Office  while  I was  there,  and  when  I returned  he  left. 
Then  B.  resumed  the  discussion.  The  man  from  N.  Y. 
was  the  one  whom  Mrs.  B.  had  caused  to  be  placed  on  our 
rolls  as  a local  Sec’y.  (See  “A  Few  Occurrences.”)  I felt 
anxious,  and  called  on  Foster  at  his  residence,  Sunday  after- 
noon, and  mentioned  the  circumstances  to  him.  He  was 
non-committal.  During  my  next  call  on  Mrs.  B.  the  N. 
Y.  man  came  in.  My  next  call  found  him  at  the  Office. 
After  he  had  left  the  Office,  I remarked  to  Mrs.  B.  that  I 
should  soon  be  in  N.  Y.  for  a week,  and  perhaps  she 
would  advise  me  how  I could  get  this  N.  Y.  man  to  aid 
our  cause,  for  he  seemed  anxious  to  help.  She  replied:  “I 
know  him  so  slightly  I could  not  advise  you;  he  comes  here 
only  to  get  his  mail.”  But  it  happened  I had  written  to 
Dr.  Davis  about  this  man’s  visit  to  Boston,  and  in  his 
answer  Davis  said  Mrs.  B.  wrote,  “stating  that  she  was 
overwhelmed  with  work,  but  fortunately  Mr. was  visit- 

ing Boston  for  a week,  and  was  kindly  helping  her  out.” 

Later  on,  Mrs.  B.  wrote  to  a N.  Y.  lady:  “Mr.  

came  to  Boston  representing  (!)  Mr.  Chas.  Dudley  Warner, 
our  Hon.  V.  P.  It  was  Mr.  Warner’s  wish  to  organize  a N. 
Y.  Branch.”  Mrs.  B.  went  into  details  in  her  letter.  Now 
during  his  fortnight  in  Boston,  where  he  took  a room  near 
the  Office,  neither  he  nor  Mrs.  B.  referred  in  any  way  to 
Warner,  or  a N.  Y.  Branch.  Mr.  B.,  however,  told  me 
that  the  N.  Y.  man  spoke  of  it,  and  of  Warner  as  “Dud,” 
and  “my  dear  Dud.”  Had  Warner  commissioned  the  man 
to  go  to  Boston,  he  would  have  given  him  a note  to  me,  or 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


55 


have  written  me  himself.  The  Baptist  minister  referred  to, 
I wrote  to  after  my  return  from  New  York;  he  called  on 
me,  and  said  Mrs.  B.  told  him  substantially  what  Mr.  B. 
had  said  to  me.  This  minister  did  not  like  the  N.  Y. 
man’s  “cut,”  and  he  advised  me  to  inquire  of  some  of  the 
N.  Y.  clergy  and  others  concerning  him.  But  I antici- 
pate. It  is  fair  to  Mrs.  B.  to  state  that  Mr.  B.  did  not  refer 
to  the  unpleasant  subject,  later  on,  and  I fancied  there  had 
been  an  “understanding”  established.  I arranged  with  Mrs. 
B.  the  proposed  circular  upon  the  Graeco-Roman  Branch, 
and  directed  her  to  mail  copies  at  once  to  the  local  Secre- 
taries. I also  wrote  her,  just  as  I was  leaving  Boston,  a 
letter  on  various  important  items,  one  of  them  relating  to 
the  circular,  and,  if  my  memory  is  correct,  stating  that  I 

should  see  Mr.  in  N.  Y.  She  was  promptly  to  mail 

me  some  of  the  new  circulars  for  my  “missionary  work”  in 
the  metropolis. 

A note  came  from  her  to  me  in  N.  Y.  stating  that 
she  had  just  mailed  circulars  to  me,  and  had  corrected  an 
error  in  my  MS.  for  the  circular  before  printing  it.  Her 
letter  ended  with  the  Egyptian  greeting,  and  “.Very  sin- 
cerely yours.”  But  what  had  she  done? 

Upon  the  morning  that  her  letter  came,  I went  to  a book 

store  which  Mr.  used  for  his  address.  I was  told  to 

place  my  card  where  mail  matter  for  the  clergy  and  others 
was  put,  and  which  they  freely  looked  over  for  their  own 
mail.  A place  open  to  any  one  to  inspect  the  mail. 
I put  my  card  in  an  envelope  addressed  to  him,  and 
as  I laid  it  down  I saw  two  letters  addressed  to  him  in 
Mrs.  B.’s  handwriting,  and  a one-cent  envelope,  bearing 
our  imprint,  with  circulars  in  it.  I turned  over  the  open 
envelope  to  find  my  circulars  almost  bulging  out  of  the 
envelope.  I just  turned  the  edge  of  a circular  to  make 
sure  that  it  was  my  circular  when  a thin  piece  of  paper  fell 
out  upon  the  floor.  I was  thinking  of  the  “error”  she  said 
she  had  “corrected”  in  my  circulars ; my  own  circulars  came 
later  that  day.  I was  replacing  the  piece  of  paper  when 
I noticed  handwriting  upon  it  — the  entire  page  of  a half 


56 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


sheet  of  note  paper  written  upon.  Now  Mrs.  B.  had  been 
careless  about  infringing  the  postal  laws,  and  I had  warned 
her  to  avoid  this  mistake.  My  eye  caught  the  words,  “Just 
a line,  my  dearest,”  and  instantly  my  resolve  was  taken. 
As  I put  down  the  envelope  I turned  over  both  her  letters 

to  Mr. , and  saw  that  one  of  them  was  sealed  with  wax. 

I went  to  a desk  and  reflected:  “I  must  protect  the  Fund 
office,  the  Government,  and,  if  possible,  save  Mrs.  B.  from 
indiscretion.  Here  were  our  envelope  and  my  circulars  — 
circulars  sent  by  my  direction,  as  if  I had  myself  mailed 
them.  The  official  correspondence  of  the  Office,  especially 
with  the  local  Secretaries,  was  always  under  my  inspection. 
My  first  thought  was  to  write  Mr.  B.  and  enclose  to  him 
this  note;  but  it  would  probably  fall  into  her  hands.  I 
determined  to  speak  decidedly  to  Mrs.  B.  on  my  return, 
and  tell  her  that  I should  inform  the  Comm,  if  she  did  not 
desist  from  such  correspondence.  But  I decided,  first,  to  write 

Mr. to  meet  me]on  Fund  business,  and  then  to  tell  him  to 

his  face  that  he  must  stop  her  writing  such  notes  to  him. 
I wrote  to  him  at  least  three  times  during  my  stay  — once 
naming  a time  to  meet  me  at  the  book  store.  I spent  two 
hours  there  one  forenoon.  I saw  two  more  letters  from 
her  awaiting  him.  I am  precise  and  full  on  these  details 
because  Mrs.  B.,  as  will  be  seen,  so  grossly  distorted  the 
facts.  She  made  mistakes,  even  in  addressing  letters  to 
me,  especially  when  overwrought,  or  behindhand  in  her 
office  work,  and  one  of  these  letters  lies  before  me  now, 
a most  important  one,  addressed  to  “525  Beacon  St.,  New 
York  City,”  which  the  keen  clerk  in  N.  Y.  rectified  and 
mailed  to  me.  She  evidently  intended  to  place  this  note 
in  the  second  letter  she  wrote  upon  the  same  day,  but  slipped 
it  into  the  wrong  envelope.  What  had  she  done?  The  note 
reveals  four  things:  That  Mrs.  B.  had  dishonored  the  pro- 
prieties of  our  Office  by  endorsing  to  Mr the  very  letter 

I had  written  to  her  just  as  I was  leaving  Boston,  to  which 
she  replied  to  me,  with  so  cordial  an  Egyptian  greeting ! 

That  she  had  already  written  to  Mr. a long  letter  “ this 

morning.”  That  she  ridiculed  me,  her  superior  officer,  by 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


57 


referring  to  me  as  “Dear  Sweet  Swilliam”  (which,  personally, 

I did  not  mind).  That  she  addressed  Mr.  as  “My 

dearest,”  although  she  had  so  recently  declared  she  knew 
him  “but  very  slightly.” 

My  sole  charge  in  this  printed  statement  respecting  this 
note  is  that  Mrs.  B.  was  indiscreet,  and  that  it  showed  her 
lack  of  proper  qualities  essential  for  the  Sec’y  to  possess. 
I asked  a member  of  a prominent  legal  firm  in  Boston  what 
he  thought  of  such  a note,  and,  after  a few  questions,  he 
replied:  “If  our  Sec’y  and  stenographer  did  such  a thing 
she  would  not  remain  in  our  office  twenty-four  hours.” 

3.  On  my  return  Mrs.  B.  was  ill  for  several  days.  Then 
a conference  “for  the  general  interests  of  the  Fund”  was 
proposed  by  Mrs.  B.  We  met  on  Jan.  5,  1898.  I took 
the  note  with  me,  as  there  might  be  an  opportunity  for  me 
to  hand  it  to  Mrs.  B.  privately  and  ask  her  for  an  explana- 
tion. I remarked  that  I must  prepare  the  annual  circular 
at  once.  (This,  of  course,  meant  that  my  signature  as 
Hon.  Sec’y  would  be  appended  to  it.)  Mrs.  B.  instantly 
turned  to  Foster  and  said,  “We  don’t  need  more  circulars, 
there  are  plenty  on  hand.”  Foster  seemed  to  take  the  cue, 
for  he  said:  “If  Dr.  Winslow  prints  any  new  circulars  I 
won’t  pay  for  them!  ” I explained  to  Foster  that  we  would 
soon  be  entirely  out  of  the  regular  E.  E.  F.  circulars  (as  a 
few  weeks  proved);  that  an  annual  circular  was  expected; 
and  I reminded  him  that  I was  “authorized  to  draft  and 
sign  circulars  and  letters  in  my  (his)  own  name,”  and  that 
this  involved  necessary  expenditure.  I remark  now  upon 
two  vital  points.  Foster  always  entertained  the  extraor- 
dinary conception  of  his  powers  that  he  was  to  judge  of 
all  expenditures.  Mrs.  B.  assumed  at  this  early  stage  of 
my  reappointment  as  Hon.  Sec’y,  that  we  were  a Comm, 
of  three,  and  a vote  could  determine  all  our  business.  I 
shall  show  this  in  the  last  conference  held.  Foster’s  letters 
show  that  he  liked  the  idea.  Two  against  one! 

I omit  other  doings  at  this  conference  except  to  add  that 
Mrs.  B.  charged  me  with  saying  that  she  was  “mentally 
unsound.”  I refuted  this;  she  turned  to  Foster  and  said, 


58 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


“You  have  said  so.”  Foster  winced,  but  answered  that  “it 
was  so.”  I asked  for  the  alleged  language  — when?  where? 
— and  all  he  could  say  wras  that  that  was  the  impression 
he  got.  I may  say  here  that  Foster’s  memory  was  most 
treacherous.  In  discussing  matters  with  him,  I have  heard 
him  exclaim,  “My  memory  is  getting  very  treacherous.” 

Mr.  B.,  who  had  entered  the  room  during  the  confer- 
ence, remarked  that  he  wished  Mrs.  B.  were  “out  of  it” 
and  would  resign.  I said  if  you  both  feel  that  way  why 
does  not  Mrs.  B.  resign? 

4.  To  illustrate  the  animus  of  Mrs.  B.  respecting  my  re- 
appointment, I add  that  she  got  printed  our  letter  paper 
for  1898,  and  omitted  my  title  as  Hon.  Sec’y  in  the  heading. 
It  was  the  official  paper  of  the  Office.  “The  Hon.  Sec’y. 
Hon.  Treas.,  Sec’y  shall  together  constitute  the  Office.” 
Thus  she  printed  the  second  and  third  of  the  officials,  but 
omitted  the  first,  who  “exercised  a general  control  over 
the  work  of  the  Office.”  This  would  make  Mrs.  B.  appear 
as  sole  Sec’y.  And  yet  she  only  reflected  Foster’s  own 
written  words  to  me  in  July  that  one  Sec’y  was  enough ! 
It  is  needless  to  add  that  Foster  promptly  paid  the  bill  for 
a large  edition  of  this  (strictly  speaking)  illegal  letter  paper. 
The  woman  had  indeed  begun  to  “minimize  my  authority,” 
and,  if  necessary,  “to  crush”  me. 

That  conference  decided  my  course.  I determined  to 
consult  a few  subscribers  and  state  my  view's  to  the  London 
Comm.  Two  or  three  days  after  the  conference,  Mrs.  B. 
told  me  that  she  had  resigned  her  position,  and  showed  me 
her  note  to  that  effect.  It  placed  her  resignation  in  the 
hands  of  the  Comm.  She  added  that,  of  course,  she  would 
sever  her  connection  with  Biblia. 

EFFORTS  TO  PUT  THINGS  RIGHT. 

1.  To  Sir  E.  M.  Thompson  I wrote  “that  no  honorable 
man  would  serve  actively  as  Hon.  Sec’y  and  be  responsible 
for  affairs  as  they  are  now  conducted.  The  Sec’y  holds 
the  entire  machinery  of  gov’t  and  publishes  our  official 
medium  (Biblia).”  “I  propose  to  call  the  attention  of 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


59 


the  Comm,  to  the  fact  that  our  office  is  not  per  se  a proper 
one,  and  to  ask  that  I be  empowered  to  procure  an  office 
accessible  to  business  men  and  others  and  in  charge  of  a 
gentleman  as  Sec’y.”  On  Jan.  10,  I spoke  earnestly  to  Fos- 
ter upon  the  need  of  having  another  office.  He  said  it  would 
cost  too  much,  and  did  not  favor  it.  On  Jan.  21,  I mailed 
to  the  Comm,  a formal  statement  beginning:  “As  the  Sec’y 
has  placed  her  resignation  in  your  hands,”  etc.  I also 
mailed  a still  more  important  statement  to  three  members 
of  the  Comm.  On  Feb.  7 a note  from  Grueber  said:  “Mrs. 
B.  has  not  resigned;  she  only  says  ‘ Dr.  Winslow  desires  my 
resignation,’  and  then  goes  on  to  say  ‘that  her  heart  and 
soul  is  in  her  work,  or  words  to  that  effect.’  . . . My  ad- 
vice to  you  privately  is  to  insist,  in  the  first  place,  on  having 
a separate  office  for  the  Fund.  In  this  I am  sure  Mr.  Foster 
will  support  you.  ...  I do  not  myself  see  how  it  is  pos- 
sible for  you  to  go  on  with  the  present  arrangements.”  I 
called  on  Foster  and  asked  if  I could  see  his  copy  of  Mrs 
B.’s  resignation.  Not  till  after  I had  carefully  considered 
it  did  I inform  Foster  what  Grueber  stated,  and  added  that 
Mrs.  B.  had  prepared  two  “resignations”  and  imposed  a 
false  one  of  them  on  me.  “ Impossible,  impossible ! ”*  said 
Foster;  “she  would  not  do  such  a thing.”  His  desire  to 
protect  her  was  such  that  he  would  not  let  me  copy  his  copy 
of  her  resignation.  Then  I wrote  him  for  a copy,  but  he 
advised  me  to  get  it  from  Mrs.  B.  I wrote  her;  she  declined. 
Then  I renewed  the  request  later  on,  saying  her  resignation 
was  official,  and  where  any  “official”  of  the  Fund  could 
inspect  it.  She  wrote  she  would  do  “ whatever  Mr.  Cotton 
directs.”  But  I had  also  promptly  written  to  the  London 
Office  for  a copy,  and  it  revealed  absolutely  what  I believed, 
viz.,  that  Mrs.  B.  had  shown  to  me  a bogus  copy  of  her 
resignation!  I had  shaped  my  entire  letter  of  Jan.  21  to 
the  Comm,  on  the  understanding  that  Mrs.  B.  had  placed 
her  resignation  in  their  hands!  I have  the  correspondence 
upon  the  subject,  but  of  course,  I have  not  a copy  of  Mrs. 

•By  coincidence,  the  very  words  Foster  used  in  May,  1902,  when  his  friend 
placed  in  his  hands  legal  and  other  data  relating  to  Mrs.  B.  These  data  will  be 
given  later  on. 


60 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


B.’s  bogus  resignation.  I was  forced  at  once  to  explain 
the  occurrence  to  the  Comm.,  and  I said:  “I  respectfully 
request  that  Mr.  Cotton  suggest  to  Mrs.  B.  that  she  im- 
mediately place  an  unequivocal  resignation  in  your  hands.” 
The  trick  played  upon  me  had  a fitting  counterpart  in  the 
artifice  used  by  Cotton  and  Mrs.  B.  to  place  her  name  on 
the  roll  of  the  Comm,  at  a later  date  — a story  in  itself,  as 
will  appear. 

2.  My  statements  to  London.  Document  No.  I pointed  out 
clearly  that  a proper  office  was  a necessity,  and  that  an  out- 
lay even  of  £40  rent  should  not  hinder  this  step.  That 
Biblia  should  not  bear  the  name  of  the  Secretary  alone  as 
publisher.  I said:  “ Biblia  is  ‘the  official  medium’  and  I 
‘the  official  representative  of  the  Fund’;  but  the  Sec’y 
keeps  me  as  ignorant  of  its  news  upon  Egypt  as  I am  of 
the  contents  of  the  Academy  until  published.  Mrs.  B.  has 
published  matter  and  added  a name  as  contributor,  of  which 
Dr.  Davis  disapproves.”  That  Mrs.  B.  encouraged  sensa- 
tional articles  upon  herself  in  the  press  (evidence  enclosed). 
That  her  secretive  methods  were  such  that  I could  not 
work  with  her  under  existing  conditions  (Specifications). 
That  she  unfairly  secured  the  appointment  of  a local  Sec’y 
in  N.  Y.,  and  betrayed  the  confidence  of  our  Office.  And 
other  matters  likewise.  Document  No.  II,  also  dated  Jan. 
21,  was  sent  to  three  of  the  Comm.,  and  later  I asked  that 
a sub-Comm.  report  upon  it  to  the  Comm.  This  document 
detailed  the  visit  of  the  N.  Y.  man  to  Boston,  Mrs. 
B.’s  note  to  him,  and  enclosed  extracts  from  two  Bishops’ 
letters,  etc.,  etc.  As  no  acknowledgment  of  my  official  state- 
ment had  come  — and  my  position  was  trying  in  the  ex- 
treme — I wrote  to  the  Comm,  the  last  of  Feb.  that  “Your 
resolutions  are  a farce.  Only  on  paper  am  I Hon.  Sec’y. 
For  Mrs.  B.  to-day  both  controls  and  directs  affairs.  As 
an  additional  instance  she  refused  to  print  in  Biblia  the 
names  of  the  new  local  Secretaries  that  now  appear  in  the 
new  Annual  Report.”  I quoted  the  opinions  of  eminent  sub- 
scribers. I added:  “Subscribers  will  be  apt  to  feel  that 
my  past  and  present  status  in  the  Fund  entitles  me  to  proper 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


61 


consideration  in  my  present  solicitude  and  wishes;  that 
the  wishes  of  a clerk  or  secretary  of  much  less  than  a year’s 
service  under  your  appointment  cannot  be  weighed  in  com- 
parison with  those  of  one  you  have  so  highly  honored.” 

3.  Views  of  Rev.  George  C.  Lorimer,  D.D.,  LL.D. 
Some  time  previous  to  sending  my'^talenaent  to  London, 
Dr.  Lorimer,  whom  I knew  very  slightly,  spoke  to  me  in  an 
electric  car  upon  the  appointment  of  Mrs.  B.  as  Sec’y  and 
publisher  of  Biblia.  He  expressed  surprise.  I encouraged 
him  to  speak  by  saying  Mrs.  B.  gave  me  much  trouble.  Dr. 
Lorimer,  her  former  pastor,  made  some  criticism  upon  her 
ways  while  at  the  Tremont  Temple,  and  then  asked  if  he 
could  speak  confidentially  with  me.  Accordingly  I natu- 
rally called  upon  Lorimer  for  advice  later  on.  He  said  my 
statements  to  London  should  be  even  stronger.  Not  one 
of  my  advisers  expressed  himself  more  forcibly.  “You 
must  get  rid  of  her.”  He  read  her  note  to  the  N.  Y. 
man.  I saw  Lorimer  twice  afterwards.  He  said  a former 
associate  (or  assistant?)  pastor  knew  more  about  the  B.’s 
than  he  did.  From  that  pastor  Irec’d  a reply  that  “with- 
out doubt  the  Secretaryship  should  be  placed  in  other 
hands,”  etc.  But  this  anticipates  the  sequence  of  events. 

4.  Good  advice.  Rev.  Mr.  S.  called  in  Jan.  at  my 
request.  He  was  the  minister  who  was  at  the  Fund  Office 
when  Mr.  B.  was  so  distressed  over  the  N.  Y.  man’s 
visit.  He  said  Mr.  B.  told  him  substantially  what  I said 
B.  had  told  me.  He  advised  me  to  write  to  clergymen  and 
others  and  inquire  about  this  N.  Y.  man.  I did  so. 
Without  giving  names,  I made  extracts  from  ten  letters, 
certified  to  as  accurate,  and  sent  the  typewritten  extracts 
to  the  Comm. 

5.  As  Mrs.  B.  now  published  Biblia,  she  printed  a con- 
spicuous notice  of  her  N.  Y.  friend’s  lectures  after  those 
of  the  Palestine  and  Egypt  Exploration  Fund,  and  she 
placed  his  name  in  the  list  of  contributors  upon  the  inside 
cover.  It  did  not  vex  me  that  she  removed  my  name  from 
the  head  of  that  list  and  put  Cotton’s  there.  I asked  Dr. 
Davis,  editor,  why  the  New  York  man’s  name  appeared  as 


62 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


contributor.  He  replied:  “I  was  surprised  to  see  ’s 

name  as  a regular  contributor,  and  immediately  wrote  a 

protest.”  Later:  “How  can  I get  ’s  name  off  the 

cover?”  Another  note  said:  “She  already  knows  my  opin- 
ion of  him,”  etc.  Since  early  Jan.  I had  not  been  to 
the  Office,  but  in  March  I called  with  a subscriber  and  told 
Mrs.  B.  both  my  views  and  those  of  Dr.  Davis  respecting 
the  list  of  contributors.  She  alluded  to  the  “N.  Y. 
Branch”  as  a matter  of  her  knowledge  since  she  saw  me 
last;  but,  in  fact,  this  N.  Y.  man  had  talked  with  her 
about  it  the  previous  Nov.  She  did  not  think  the 
New  York  man  would  care  if  dropped  from  the  list  of  local 
Secs.,  for  as  Sec’y  he  would  be  in  charge  of  the  N.  Y. 
Branch.  However,  she  knew  him  “very  slightly,”  and 
could  not  speak  for  him.  As  for  Dr.  Davis,  he  had  never 
alluded  to  the  subject  or  to  the  N.  Y.  man  in  any  way. 
She  reiterated  this  positively. 

The  subscriber  who  accompanied  me  to  the  Office  was 
Mr.  Edward  Royall  Tyler  of  Beacon  Street.  He  was  sur- 
prised when  I informed  him  that  Dr.  Davis  had  told  me 
the  exact  opposite  of  what  Mrs.  B.  declared.  Living  near 
me,  I showed  the  proofs  of  it  to  him  that  evening.  He  said 
he  would  write  to  London,  and  he  enclosed  to  me  this  copy : 

To  the  Committee  of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund: 

Gentlemen,  — As  long  a member  of  your  Society  and  deeply  inter- 
ested in  its  welfare  I beg  to  give  you  the  following  particulars.  Dr. 
Winslow,  the  Hon.  Secretary,  invited  me  to  go  with  him  to  the  Office. 
There  I heard  the  Secretary,  Mrs.  B.,  repeatedly  say  to  him  that 
Mr.  Davis,  who  edits  “ Biblia,”  had  never  asked  her  to  remove  the 

name  of  a Mr. from  the  list  of  contributors.  She  declared  that 

Mr.  Davis  had  never  even  mentioned  his  name  in  his  letters  to  her. 
My  surprise  was  indeed  great  when  Dr.  Winslow  showed  me  several 
letters  from  Mr.  Davis  which  showed  that  he  had  requested  Mrs.  B. 

to  remove  Mr. ’s  name  from  the  list  of  contributors.  I feel  that 

you  should  know  under  what  difficulties  Dr.  Winslow  conducts  the 
affairs  of  the  Office.  I am,  with  great  respect, 

Yours  very  truly, 

E.  Royall  Tyler. 


March  18,  1898. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


63 


How  my  wish  to  have  a proper  “Office,”  to  have  the  Bos- 
ton Office  properly  administered,  was  passed  over  by  the 
Comm.,  will  now  appear.  Nor  did  the  opinions  of  prominent 
subscribers  appear  to  have  had  any  weight  in  London.  One 
of  them,  Dean  Hoffman,  wrote  to  me  (Feb.  16):  “I  do  not 
see  what  the  Comm,  can  do  except  to  get  rid  of  Mrs.  B.  as 
soon  as  and  as  quietly  as  possible.  Her  continuance  in  office 
will  do  a great  injury  to  the  cause  of  the  Fund. 

“ There  is  no  reason  why  you  should  resign  your  office;  in 
fact,  every  reason  why  you  should  not.” 

“A  great  injury  to  the  cause  of  the  Fund.”  This  Head 
of  a great  School  of  the  Prophets  prophesied  well.  Had 
Cotton  been  asked  by  the  Comm,  to  suggest  to  Mrs.  B.  that 
she  resign  quietly,  the  “great  injury”  had  all  been  averted. 
Who  is  to  blame? 

HOW  COTTON  AND  FOSTER  ABETTED  THE 
SECRETARY. 

My  readers,  you  can  hardly  realize  the  difficulties  of  my 
position  at  this  crisis  of  affairs.  Foster  would  listen  to  no 
statement  or  evidence  that  I then  possessed  respecting  Mrs. 
B.  Cotton  was  her  fast  ally.  The  Editor  of  Biblia  urged 
me  to  be  careful.  He  wrote:  “If  Mrs.  B.  has  not  sent  in 
her  resignation,  then,  with  Cotton  in  the  field,  I do  not  be- 
lieve for  a moment  that  London  will  accept  it.  . . . Cotton 
will  stand  by  Mrs.  B.,  and  there  is  no  telling  what  her  friends 
in  Boston  are  up  to.”  On  the  last  of  Feb.  a note  from 
Grueber  said:  “We  can  only  wait  here  and  let  matters  work 
themselves  out  with  you.  . . . Your  position  is  a most  try- 
ing one,  and  I hope  you  will  devise  some  plan  that  we  could 
support.”  Concerning  the  note  from  Mrs.  B.  to  the  N.  Y. 
man  which  I described  in  my  letter,  Grueber  remarked: 
“The  charges  are  too  serious  to  be  brought  forward  without 
corroborative  evidence.  Mind,  I do  not  question  what  you 
say;  but  plainly  no  action  can  be  taken  officially.” 

This  note  is  described  under  head  second  of  “Unpleasant 
Discoveries.”  The  chief  object  of  her  note  to  the  man 
obviously  was  to  help  him  to  decide  his  course  towards  me 


64 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


when  I saw  him.  Accordingly,  she  had  enclosed  to  him  my 
confidential  official  letter  to  her.  I asked  a former  impor- 
tant official  of  the  U.'S.  if  I had  in  anyw  ay  violated  the  law  ? 
“Certainly  not,  the  spirit  of  it,”  he  said;  “for  you  were  offi- 
cially bound  to  prevent  any  misuse  of  the  mails  by  the  Sec’y; 
also  to  protect  the  Fund,  and  yourself  as  the  chief  official.” 
As  the  circulars  were  Fund  property,  and  mailed  as  such, 
by  my  direction,  the  note  was  official  property.  I knew  by 
sad  experience  that  to  speak  to  Foster  about  the  note  would 
be  useless;  in  fact,  that  he  would  “plan  and  plot”  with 
Mrs.  B.  Am  I severe?  Read  what  is  to  follow  later  on. 

1.  How  Cotton  kept  his  Word.  I found  that  I must  use 
all  possible  means  to  convince  the  Comm,  that  Mrs.  B.  should 
not  retain  her  office.  I must  convince  Grueber  that  the 
note  was  genuine.  He  could  assure  Mr.  T.  F.  Hall  or  Mr. 
F.  W.  Percival  that  I had  stated  a fact,  and  that  would 
influence  their  action.  Hall  had  ended  a kind  note  to  me 
immediately  after  my  visit  to  London  in  April,  1897,  “ Where 
you  are  right  I will  not  cease  to  support  you,  if  needs  be,” 
that  is  in  his  Committee.  Percival  had  impressed  me  as  an 
honorable  gentleman.  Unfortunately,  however,  he  is  con- 
stantly abroad  from  England.  I mentioned  my  perplexity 
to  a legal  friend,  making  a social  call,  and  he  instantly  said: 
“ Send  your  London  correspondent  a photo,  of  the  note  — 
that  will  convince  him.”  In  strictest  confidence  I mailed 
to  Grueber  a photo,  of  the  note,  taken  by  a friend  privately. 
But  Grueber,  as  will  appear,  showed  the  photo,  to  Cotton 
in  confidence.  He  did  it  to  convince  the  Hon.  Sec’y  that 
he  was  mistaken  in  his  (declared)  opinion  of  Mrs.  B.  Grueber 
felt  he  was  acting  for  the  best.  How  little  he  realized  the 
hold  “the  Sec’y  in  the  Boston  Office”  had  upon  the  Hon. 
Sec’y  of  a learned  society  in  England!  I anticipate  the 
sequence,  however,  by  quoting  from  Grueber’s  personal 
letter  to  me  dated  April  15,  ’98.  I had  questioned  him  at 
once  when  I found  that  Mrs.  B.  was  disseminating  as  news 
that  I had  “distributed  copies  in  England”  of  a photo,  of 
one  of  her  letters.  Copies!  His  reply  reads:  “In  accord- 
ance with  your  request  I return  herewith  the  photograph, 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


65 


which  I had  intended  to  destroy.  I must  admit  that  in  the 
course  of  a conversation  on  the  general  subject  of  your  let- 
ters (to  the  Comm.)  in  re  the  Boston  Office,  I did  show  the 
photograph  to  Mr.  Cotton,  but  it  was  in  the  strictest  con- 
fidence, and  I am  deeply  grieved  and  annoyed  that  he  should 
have  made  any  reference  to  it.  I need  scarcely  say  it  was 

A MOST  SERIOUS  BREACH  OF  CONFIDENCE.  ...  I Can  Only 
add  that  I deeply  regret  what  has  occurred,  and  that  there 
should  have  been  such  a breach  of  confidence.”  I italicize 
the  words  above. 

2.  What  did  the  Committee  Reply?  On  March  26  their 
answer  came  to  my  statement  of  Jan.  21.  It  was  in  the 
form  of  a brief  letter  written  and  signed  by  Cotton.  The 
delay  in  replying  was  because  the  Comm,  “felt  it  necessary 
to  communicate  with  Mr.  Foster,  and  obtain  from  him  inde- 
pendent information,”  etc.  Cotton  said:  “The  Comm, 

have  not  concerned  themselves  with  minor  matters  . . . 
taking  another  office  for  the  Fund  in  Boston,”  etc.  They 
answer  now  “the  one  question  of  pressing  importance,” 
etc.  They  decide  “that  no  sufficient  reasons  have  been 
shown  why  Mrs.  B.  should  be  called  upon  to  resign.”  Then, 
adroitly,  he  commits  the  Comm,  to  no  action  upon  specifi- 
cations by  adding:  “Without  expressing  any  judgment  on 
particular  acts,  they  think  it  due  to  her  to  state  their  belief 
that  her  conduct  generally  as  Sec’y  has  been  intelligent, 
zealous,  and  loyal”  (to  the  Comm.).  The  responsibility  for 
my  own  “resignation”  (?)  must  rest  with  myself. 

My  instantaneous  thought  was  “resignation.”  Asking 
Foster  for  independent  (that  is,  unbiased)  information!* 
Certainly  Cotton  knew  what  information  he  would  furnish. 
“Judgment  on  particular  acts.”  Why,  particular  acts  were 
the  gist  of  my  document!  Specifications  are  all  in  all  in 
charges  made.  Could  honorable  men  and  women  on  the 
Comm,  consider  such  actions  as  her  note  “intelligent,  zeal- 
ous, loyal,”  for  the  Sec’y  of  a learned  body?  But  I re-read 
and  re-read  Cotton’s  diplomatic  letter;  at  last  I detected 

•Foster  had,  through  Mrs.  B.,  officially  informed  the  Comm,  that  he  should 
immediately  resign  if  Mrs.  B.  were  retired.  Certified  to  by  Emily  Paterson, 
Sec'y,  on  March  9, 1898,  from  Mrs.  B.'s  note  of  Jan.  6. 


66 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


the  possibility  that  the  contents  of  my  more  important 
statement  were  not  officially  known  to  any  of  the  Comm., 
that  is,  at  a meeting.  And  I guessed  correctly. 

Accordingly  my  reply  to  the  Comm,  waived  my  resigna- 
tion; but  I distinctly  said  that  the  carbon  copies  of  my  type- 
written letters  to  the  Comm.,  submitted  to  several  of  our 
best  members,  had  their  full  endorsement.  I added  “a 
protest  against  the  apparent  part  taken  by  Mr.  Cotton  as 
an  ally  of  Mrs.  B.’s,  especially  in  secret  correspondence  with 
her  upon  recent  events.”  “I  ask  that  I may  know  what  my 
associates  communicate  to  you;  they  may  always  know 
the  communications  you  receive  from  me.” 

Comments  on  my  Reply.  Two  subscribers,  living  in 
Cambridge,  wrote  to  me.  Rev.  Dr.  Alex.  McKenzie  said: 
“I  am  confident  that  you  will  have  the  sympathy  of  all 
friends  of  the  society  in  your  efforts  to  give  it  a proper  stand- 
ing in  the  community.”  Prof.  Joseph  Henry  Thayer  ended 
his  note : “ By  your  constancy,  you  will  in  time  not  only  win 
your  soul  but  also  win  the  recovery  of  everything  to  its 
legitimate  uses.”  J.  V.  V.  Booraem,  the  eminent  engineer, 
wrote:  “You  are  fully  justified  in  your  demands  for  a man 
in  the  office.”  Miss  Georgiana  Willard,  a most  liberal  sup- 
porter, declared:  “You  could  not  conscientiously  have  kept 
silent.”  Archdeacon  Chambre,  of  Lowell,  wrote:  “You 
should  insist  on  a full  and  complete  resignation  on  the  part 
of  the  present  Sec’y.  Either  a resignation  or  a dismissal.” 
Prof.  C.  M.  Tyler,  Cornell,  said:  “My  feeling  is  that  the 
London  Soc’y  is  acting  in  a cowardly  way  to  leave  you  to 
fight  the  battle.”  The  foregoing  extracts  show  how  sub- 
scribers who  knew  of  the  facts  sympathized  with  me.  Re- 
garding my  intimation  that  official  correspondence  from 
Boston  to  London  should  always  be  open  to  my  associates 
or  myself,  I remark  that  I requested  from  London  a copy 
of  Foster’s  “independent  information”  which  he  had  sent 
to  the  Comm.,  but  was  refused  it  (I  have  the  reply  from  Lon- 
don); but,  on  the  other  hand,  Foster  had  copies  of  my  offi- 
cial statements  to  London.  He  secured  them  from  a sub- 
scriber in  Boston  who  requested  them  from  me.  That  Foster 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


67 


influenced  some  at  least  of  the  Comm,  against  me  is  certain. 
That  Cotton  expected  his  letter  would  impel  me  to  resign 
appeared  as  late  as  Oct.,  1901,  when  Mrs.  B.  jeered  me  at 
a conference  with  Foster,  for  not  having  been  man  enough  to 
resign  when  Cotton  wrote  me  so  pointedly!  (See  “A  Singu- 
lar Consultation.”)  Mr.  Hall  was  quite  transformed  by 
Foster’s  statement,  but  I will  not  quote  his  personal  note 
to  me,  nor  other  notes  in  which  he  enlarged  upon  their  pri- 
vacy. I think  Thompson,  Baylis,  perhaps  one  or  two  others, 
still  felt  sore  over  the  retirement  of  the  Loring  Comm.,  and 
that  that  influenced  them  to  vote  not  to  retire  the  Sec’y. 

But  I questioned  Grueber  explicitly  upon  the  Committee’s 
reply.  He  answered  that  a few  members  thought  it  not 
expedient  to  have  my  more  important  letter  go  before  the 
Comm.  He  kindly  remarked:  “I  am  afraid  that  you  have 
a very  tough  antagonist,  and  it  will  take  all  your  wisdom 
to  steer  your  course  clear  of  the  breakers.”  Dean  Hoffman, 
on  April  5,  wrote:  “I  cannot  understand  the  action  of  the 
London  Comm,  in  leaving  things  in  such  a muddle.” 

Two  explanations.  No.  1 is  mine, — that  Cotton  was 
her  ally  and  Foster  her  tool.  No.  2 is  a voice  from  Auburn 
Theol.  Sem’y.  Prof.  W.  J.  Beecher  wrote  to  me  in  Febru- 
ary, 1902,  what  applied  as  well  for  1898:  “I  know  of  no 

INFATUATION  MORE  HOPELESS  THAN  THAT  OF  A BODY  OF  RE- 
SPECTABLE MEN  WHEN  THEY  FALL  UNDER  THE  DOMINION  OF 
A SHARP  WOMAN.” 

These  two  “explanations  explain”  the  “muddle.” 

3.  What  had  Foster  done?  Soon  after  I had  rec’d 
Cotton’s  reply  for  the  Comm.,  subscribers  began  to  notify 
me  of  a singular  typewritten  circular  rec’d  by  them  from 
Mrs.  B.  Complaints  of  letters  received  of  a very  personal 
nature  came  to  me.  Her  circular  stated  that  I was  circu- 
lating documents  “detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the  So- 
ciety,” and  she  most  virtuously  declared  that  “The  E.  E. 
Fund  stands  for  higher  things  than  a channel  for  personal 
grievance.”  One  of  the  complainants,  Prof.  C.  R.  Gillett, 
D.D.,  of  the  Union  Theol.  Sem’y  in  N.  Y.,  wrote  to  me: 
“It  is  very  desirable  that  you  should  let  the  London  au- 


68 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


thorities  know  of  the  whole  state  of  the  case,  and  that  they 
should  be  warned  to  have  nothing  more  to  do  in  the  matter 

of  recognizing * at  all  or  Mrs.  B.  any  more.  She  is  a 

snake  in  the  grass,  and  is  undermining  you  in  every  way  that 
she  can.”  Her  circular  implied  Foster’s  approval  of  it.  I 
wrote  to  him  at  once  to  ask  if  he  approved  of  her  typewritten 
circulars.  He  replied:  “I  learned  while  at  the  South  that 
Mrs.  B.  intended  to  send  the  circular  to  which  you  refer  . . . 
and  entirely  approved  her  action.”  Simply  on  her  state- 
ment, in  a letter  to  Foster,  he  had  “entirely  approved  her 
action”!  What  could  be  more  unjust  and  discourteous  to 
me,  his  associate,  than  to  not  merely  afford  me  no  oppor- 
tunity for  explanation,  but  to  join  secretly  in  circulating  a 
paper  that  was  a serious  reflection  upon  myself,  and  was 
per  se  “detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the  Society”? 

I mentioned  this  partisanship  to  several  persons,  who 
expressed  astonishment  at  it.  One  of  them,  a lawyer,  who 
has  addressed  the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington  on  a noted 
case,  volunteered  to  write  to  Sir  E.  M.  Thompson,  and,  after 
stating  the  facts,  remarked  to  Thompson:  “I  must  express 
my  surprise  at  such  an  ex  parte  proceeding  by  the  Hon.  Treas- 
urer, who  at  the  least  should  have  notified  the  Hon.  Sec’y 
and  heard  his  statement  of  the  case.” 

To  Foster  I replied  that  I had  “sent  out”  no  “circulars” 
or  anything  of  the  sort;  but  I had  submitted  to  some  of  the 
subscribers,  for  their  advice,  my  own  carbon  copies  of  my 
official  statement  to  London,  and  that  I had  informed  the 
Comm,  of  such  action.  That  I protested  against  his  sanc- 
tion of  Mrs.  B.’s  circular  without  notifying  me  and  hearing 
what  I had  to  say  about  it. 

4.  Foster  upholds  the  Secretary.  Made  more  daring  by 
the  reply  from  Cotton,  counting  absolutely  upon  Foster 
and  Cotton,  Mrs.  B.  wrote  astonishing  letters,  said  aston- 
ishing things  to  people,  and  did  an  astonishing  act.  First, 
the  act.  A postoffice  inspector,  a friend  of  the  B.’s,  called 
on  me  to  say  that  Mrs.  B.  claimed  that  I had  a private  letter 
mailed  by  her  to  a friend  on  personal  matters.  I informed 

* Her  New  York  friend. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


69 


him  that  the  note,  however  personal  in  one  sense  and  not  a 
good  sense,  treated  of  Fund  matters,  and  I explained  the 
case  entirely  to  him.  I showed  the  note  to  him.  He  seemed 
amazed  at  its  contents,  and  said  that  any  publicity  would 
injure  the  Soc’y  and  hurt  the  writer.  I went  to  his  office, 
perhaps  the  next  day,  and  remarked  that  since  the  Comm, 
had  acted  in  the  matter  of  Mrs.  B.’s  resignation,  the  note 
was  useless  to  me.  I discussed  the  question  of  the  sanctity 
of  the  mails  with  him.  He  struck  me  as  a thorough  martinet. 
I soon  concluded  that  Mrs.  B.’s  effort  was  a flash  in  the  pan. 
Some  time  on,  a note  from  the  inspector  asked  if  I would 
call  at  his  office.  There  I met  Foster  and  Mr.  and  Mrs.  B. 
A legal  friend  had  accompanied  me.  Mrs.  B.  read  a letter 
from  Cotton  which  showed  that  he  had  more  than  abused 
Grueber’s  confidence:  Cotton  saw  no  harm  at  all  in  her 
note  — perhaps  one  expression  might  have  been  changed 
a little.  No  harm  in  her  abusing  the  confidence  of  the  Bos- 
ton Office!  Then  she  read  a letter  from  a valued  Western 
subscriber  with  whom  I had  long  corresponded.  His  letter 
was  in  her  favor.  Little  did  I know  then  that  Loring  had 
been  induced  to  write  this  gentleman.  And  what?  Finally, 
Mrs.  B.  declared  that  I had  no  control  over  the  office  and 
official  correspondence,  and,  to  cap  her  audacity,  produced 
Cotton’s  letter  of  Aug.  6,  1897,  already  described  by  me  in 
“Had  Cotton  played  a double  part?”  I was  dumfounded. 
Then  I told  the  inspector  that  Cotton’s  letter  had  no  appli- 
cation at  all;  that  he  had  written  to  me  quite  another  kind 
of  a letter;  that  the  Comm,  had  since  defined  my  authority, 
that  I was  placed  in  “general  control,”  etc.  I appealed  to 
Foster,  but  he  was  dumb.  I had  no  documentary  evidence 
with  me.  The  inspector  told  me  that  I seemed  like  the  one 
obstinate  juryman  — the  English  Hon.  Sec’y,  the  American 
Sec’y,  the  American  Treas.,  and  others  (referring  to  Loring 
and  this  Western  man)  “all  against  you  and  your  views  of 
the  matter.”  Then  he  proceeded  to  lecture  me  upon  my 
exceeding  my  authority,  and  added  that  under  the  circum- 
stances I ought  to  apologize  to  Mrs.  B.  (!).  To  do  him 
justice,  he  said  that  if  such  a note  got  into  the  papers  it 


70 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


would  injure  the  Soc’y  and  hurt  the  writer  of  it.  As  I learned 
later  on,  Mrs.  B.  and  Foster  had  got  Loring  to  speak  against 
me  to  the  inspector,  and  Loring,  still  smarting  over  his  re- 
tirement as  chairman  of  the  Boston  Comm,  and  in  a mood 
to  listen  to  whatever  Mrs.  B.  and  Foster  might  say  to  him, 
acquiesced.  Little  did  I dream,  however,  what  was  said  to 
him  by  Foster  and  herself. 

At  the  least,  the  outrageous  invention  tinctured  Loring’s 
letter  to  the  Western  subscriber,  and  his  remarks  to  the 
inspector.  Shortly  after  the  episode  at  the  inspector’s 
office,  I called  on  Loring,  determined  to  let  light  in  upon 
his  ignorance  of  past  but  recent  history.  He  admitted 
seeing  the  inspector,  etc.,  etc.,  but  when  I began  to  touch  on 
Mrs.  B.’s  part  in  the  retirement  of  his  Comm.,  etc.,  and  pro- 
duced papers,  he  cut  me  short  with  the  remark  that  he  did 
not  wish  to  discuss  that  matter  — it  was  a matter  of  record 
— and  when  persistently  I began  to  say  that  Mrs.  B.  played 
a double  part,  he  rose  and  said  the  interview  had  better  end. 
To  do  the  man  justice,  and  I believe  he  was  sincere,  he  la- 
bored under  the  spell  of  an  outrageous  invention  — which 
will  be  disclosed  in  the  evolution  of  this  phenomenal  history. 

I was  willing  to  lay  the  case  before  the  U.  S.  Commis- 
sioner at  once,  but  Mrs.  B.  had  no  desires  that  way.  The 
“apology”  and  all  connected  with  the  case  soon  melted 
into  thin  air.  There  was  a reason  for  this  which  I did  not 
then  know.  In  going  before  the  Commissioner  she  would 
have  had  to  give  her  name  under  oath.  She  had  not  been 
using  her  lawful  name  as  the  Sec’y!  The  name  that  appeared 
on  the  circulars,  in  the  Annual  Report,  and  which  she  ap- 
pended to  her  official  correspondence,  was  not  her  proper 
legal  name,  certainly  not  her  name  in  the  eyes  of  the  Church. 
This  fact,  and  any  publicity,  would  have  brought  out  infor- 
mation which,  in  all  probability,  would  have  forced  her  to 
resign.  This  information  some  of  the  London  Comm,  were 
aware  of  last  spring  or  summer. 

The  day  after  the  meeting  at  the  inspector’s  office,  I called 
there  with  an  ex-Dist.  Att’y  for  the  U.  S.  I showed  to  the 
inspector  a few  letters  from  eminent  men,  and  then  the 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


71 


original  document  of  my  official  appointment  as  Hon.  Sec’y. 
After  reading  it,  he  exclaimed:  “What  can  I believe  now?” 

Secondly,  the  astonishing  letters.  How  Mrs.  B., 
emboldened  by  the  vote  of  the  London  Comm.,  by  Cotton’s 
quasi  approval  of  her  note,  by  Foster’s  tacit  approval  of  it 
— by  the  apparent  support  of  the  Comm,  and  sure  support 
of  Cotton  and  Foster  — began  to  write  astonishing  letters 
will  be  now  twice  illustrated.  The  first  sample  shows  her 
care  in  addressing  a clergyman.  He  promptly  sent  her 
letter  to  me. 

Rev.  Chas.  J.  Wood,  York,  Penn.: 

Dear  Sir,  — I send  you,  inclosed,  a letter  now  being  mailed  by  the 
advice  of  my  Counsel  to  some  of  our  Hon.  Secs.  It  is  important  that 
this  document  be  secured  for  the  London  Comm.  I have  some  in- 
dignant letters  from  those  who  have  rec’d  the  papers  referred  to. 
These  gentlemen  would  have  returned  the  copies  but  did  not  keep 
them.  . . . The  London  Comm,  have  formally  met  and  notified  Dr. 
Winslow  as  well  as  Mr.  Foster  and  myself  that  — but  I will  quote 
the  passage  for  you.  (Relating  to  her  “resignation”)  ...  In  the 
absence  of  Mr.  Foster,  with  his  knowledge,  however,  I write  to  say 
that  we  both  would  prefer  that  such  copy  as  you  may  have  be  sent 
to  him,  at  our  office  address  (Mrs.  B.  opened  all  his  mail). 

Comments.  “Indignant  letters.”  She  had  rec’d  a letter 
from  a Western  subscriber,  already  referred  to,  then  ill, 
since  deceased,  to  whom  Loring,  and  probably  Foster,  per- 
haps Cotton,  had  written.  I had  consulted  this  esteemed 
subscriber,  and,  on  Feb.  28,  he  replied:  “It  should  be  en- 
tirely in  the  power  of  the  American  end  of  the  work  to 
remove  such  incumbents  (as  Mrs.  B.).  I would  hardly  dele- 
gate the  living  of  a clerk  to  a London  Committee.”  I wrote 
to  this  gentleman,  and,  in  view  of  what  Loring  had  written 
to  him,  I am  not  surprised  now  that  his  last^reply  was  curt. 

The  other  letter  was  written  by  Mrs.  B.  to  an  esteemed 
local  Sec’y,  somewhat  an  invalid,  and  to  whom  (owing  to 
her  previous  sympathetic  notes  to  her)  Mrs.  B.  thought  she 
might  vent  her  feelings : “ . . . I fear  I shall  distress  you,  I 
am  so  sorry  about  it.  ...  I have  counsel  appointed  by  the 
London  Comm.,  and  am  advised  to  send  out  the  inclosed 


72 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


circular  for  the  purpose  therein  stated.  I will  also  tell  you 
this.  From  Dec.  6 to  13  Dr.  W.  was  in  New  York  City. 
During  that  time  he  purloined  a letter  written  by  me  to  one 
of  our  Hon.  Secs.  . . . The  letter  was  about  him.  ...  He 
had  this  photographed  and  distributed  copies  in  England 
to  harm  me.  The  recipients  there  informed  me  of  it.  . . . 
The  sentence  is  payment  of  $500,  or  one  or  two  years  im- 
prisonment at  hard  labor,  or  both.  The  case  will  rest  until 
we  have  advice  from  London.” 

“I  am  so  sorry  about  it,”  was  too  much  for  the  genuine 
woman  to  whom  Mrs.  B.  wrote,  and  she  placed  the  letter  in 
my  hands.  Comments  by  me.  “Counsel  appointed  by 
the  London  Comm. ! ” The  same  that  advised  her  to  write 
to  Rev.  C.  J.  Wood?  Would  the  Comm,  sanction  her  send- 
ing out  such  a circular  ? “Copies  in  England?”  To  whom? 
Where?  “The  recipients  there  informed  me  of  it.”  Did 
Cotton  constitute  these  recipients?  And  so  on. 

Thirdly,  the  astonishing  things  said.  Just  two  illus- 
trations. Mr.  William  G.  Brooks,  of  Boston,  informed  me  of 
statements  made  by  her  to  him  in  a public  place.  At  my 
request  he  placed  his  signature  to  these  statements  made 
on  or  about  April  28.  I condense  the  statements:  That  the 
Comm,  resolved  to  turn  Dr.  W.  out  of  office  unless  he  made 
a written  apology  to  her.  That  the  Comm,  had  instructed 
her  not  to  allow  Dr.  W.  to  see  her  except  in  the  presence  of 
a third  party.  That  Mr.  Cotton  told  her  when  he  was  in 
Boston  that  the  Comm,  had  long  regarded  Dr.  W.  as  a detri- 
ment to  the  Fund  and  meant  to  get  rid  of  him.  * That  Dr. 
W.  had  admitted  in  the  presence  of  a postoffice  inspector 
that  he  had  opened  and  kept  three  letters  which  she  had 
written  to  a certain  person. 

When  I showed  Mr.  Brooks’  statement,  which  he  signed 
and  a witness  also  signed  in  my  presence,  to  the  legal  friend 
who  was  with  me  at  the  interview  with  the  inspector  et  al., 
he  noticed  instantly  the  magnifying  power  of  Mrs.  B.  to 
turn  one  into  three!  To  Renwick  B.  Knox,  the  banker,  a 

* Compare  this  with  Cotton’s  letter  to  me  when  he  was  in  Boston.  (See  “ Cot* 
ton  in  Boston.”) 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FEND. 


73 


local  Sec’y,  Mrs.  B.  wrote  that  Cotton  on  behalf  of  the  Comm, 
notified  her  that  I must  apologize  to  her  — “at  least  must 
do  that.” 

5.  A Refutation  from  London.  To  Cotton  I could 
not  write  upon  these  astonishing  perversions.  Accordingly, 
I presented  the  case  explicitly  to  the  Hon.  Treas,  Grueber. 
On  May  13  he  replied  about  the  perversions  pointedly,  offi- 
cially: “As  regards  our  Committee,  we  decided  to  take  no 
part  at  all  in  the  differences  between  you  and  Mrs.  B.  Mr. 
Cotton  was  wrong  if  he  pledged  us  in  any  way.  And  we 
made  that  perfectly  clear  at  a special  meeting,  after  which 
Mr.  Cotton  had  to  write  to  Mrs.  B.  to  that  effect.”  “ If” 
is  a vital  word.  How  much  had  Cotton  really  abetted  her? 
How  much  had  she  magnified  his  assurances  to  her?  On 
July  4,  Grueber,  alluding  to  the  troubles,  wrote  to  me:  “I 
am  glad  there  is  peace  again,  and  may  it  last.  No  doubt 
your  course  will  be  a difficult  one  to  steer;  but  I hope  there 
will  be  no  casualties.  As  you  are  aware,  the  Committee 

WOULD  NOT  TAKE  ANY  ACTION  IN  THE  DIFFERENCES.” 

Impartiality  is  my  aim  paramount  to  all  else.  In  the 
fall  I mentioned  to  Grueber  that*  the  stories  “the  Comm, 
wished  to  get  rid  of  me”  floated  about  (started  by  Mrs.  B.?), 
and  thus  on  Nov.  30,  he  replied: 

The  statement  as  to  the  London  Committee’s  feeling  towards  you 
is  perfectly  false.  Though,  at  one  time,  as  you  know,  our  relations 
were  a little  strained,  yet  the  London  Committee  always  appreciated 
your  zeal  for  the  Fund,  and  the  immense  services  you  have  rendered 
over  so  long  a period. 

The  fact  of  the  London  Committee  accepting  your  view  about  the 
disbanding  of  the  Boston  Committee  dispenses  with  any  idea  of  dis- 
missal. Had  such  an  idea  ever  suggested  itself,  their  line  would  have 
been  quite  the  contrary.  The  course  taken,  on  the  other  hand,  shows 
how  much  your  services  are  esteemed. 

I hope  this  will  stop  the  voice  of  the  slanderer. 

For  Loring,  too,  I wish  to  say  a word.  In  the  fall  of  1897 
I knew  that  the  statements  about  him  made  to  me  by  Mrs. 
B.  must  be  inventions  or  distortions  of  the  truth;  and  what 
he  said  to  me,  in  1902,  as  a kind  of  amende,  revealed  to  me 
that  he,  too,  realized,  to  some  extent  at  last,  the  wrong  he 


74 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


had  done  me  in  listening  to  such  inventions  as  those  of  Mrs. 
B.  and  accepted  as  true  by  Francis  C.  Foster. 

I have  devoted  much  space  to  the  details  respecting  Mrs. 
B.’s  note  to  the  N.  Y.  man,  and  to  her  private  circular, 
because  I have  never  known  to  how  many  subscribers  she 
distorted  the  facts  and  to  how  many  she  mailed  her  circular. 
I took  no  notice  at  all  of  her  circular.  She  also  circulated 
typewritten  slips  containing  just  that  portion  of  Cotton’s 
letter  for  the  Comm,  upon  “resignation,”  which  related  to 
her  own  vindication  (?),  and  the  suggestion  that  the  respon- 
sibility of  my  resignation  would  be  mine  alone.  Subscrib- 
ers who  had  known  of  no  troubles  were  mystified  by  her 
circulars. 

6.  An  effort  by  Foster.  That  Foster,  sure  of  the  support 
of  Cotton  after  the  refusal  of  the  Comm,  to  retire  Mrs.  B., 
tried  to  “get  rid”  of  me,  and  quite  expected  to,  appears 
in  a note  dated  April  25  to  Charles  W.  Sloane,  Esq.,  local 
Sec’y  in  N.  Y.  He  informed  Mr.  Sloane:  “We  are  likely 
to  have  a change  here  this  week,  which,  if  effected,  may 
prove  a surprise  to  many,  and  will,  I think,  put  a stop  to 
such  circulars  as  you  rec’d  last  March.”  Foster’s  “sur- 
prise,” however,  came  when  “Cotton  had  to  write  to  Mrs. 
B.”  that  the  Comm,  would  take  no  part  in  the  differences. 
From  the  start  Foster  wanted  no  Hon.  Sec’y  — no  one  to 
rank  superior  to  him  in  the  Boston  Office.  Upon  this  foible 
Mrs.  B.  relied,  aside  from  her  hypnotic  influence.  It  will 
appear  how  carefully  I had  refrained  from  the  slightest  in- 
terference with  Foster’s  department.  Now  as  to  the  “cir- 
cular” Foster  refers  to,  he  had  been  informed  officially  by 
me  that  I had  sent  out  no  circulars,  nor  had  he  the  least 
evidence  that  there  were  circulars.  Yet,  he  persistently 
refers  to  “circulars.”  I have  the  official  correspondence 
thereon. 

It  is  sufficient  to  add  respecting  the  N.  Y.  man  with 
whom  Mrs.  B.  corresponded,  that,  following  his  retirement 
as  a local  Sec’y  and  special  contributor  to  Biblia,  he  retired 
as  a local  Sec’y  of  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund  and  as 
Sec’y  of  the  “N.  Y.  Branch.” 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


75 


7.  What  was  I to  do?  Resign?  No  one  of  my  advisers 
favored  it.  The  London  Comm,  earnestly  desired  adjust- 
ment of  the  troubles  ; they  would  not  remove  the  Sec’y ; 
and  I could  not  be  ousted  by  Foster  and  Mrs.  B.;  indeed, 
assurances  came  to  subscribers  that  my  status  would  now 
be  maintained  by  the  Comm.  What  if  I resigned?  Mrs. 
B.  would  explain  matters  in  her  own  way  to  the  subscribers, 
and  to  injure  my  personal  reputation.  She  would  quote 
Cotton  and  Foster  and  herself  as  against  me  — three  to  one 
— and  Cotton’s  letters  to  her.  The  Fund  would  be  con- 
ducted in  her  interests  (see  what  is  to  come),  and  my  dream 
of,  my  toil  for,  a high  standard  of  administration  would 
have  been  in  vain.  In  all  probability  I should  be  thrown 
out  of  touch  with  the  news  — coveted  news  — of  discov- 
ery for  my  articles.  Did  not  I owe  much  to  many  local 
Secretaries  and  subscribers,  and  should  I leave  them  in  the 
lurch?  Even  the  crowning  motive,  my  love  for  the  cause, 
might  not  have  stayed  my  resignation  had  not  I learned 
that  Mrs.  B.  had  been  critically  ill  and  earnestly  sought 
for  an  adjustment  of  the  troubles.  She  professed  deepest 
regrets  and  asked  that  a veil  be  dropped  upon  the  past. 
“Such  a state  of  things  could  never  happen  again!”  The 
preceding  winter  she  had  suffered  from  a nervous  trouble, 
now  relieved  by  an  operation,  and  had  said  and  done  things 
which  would  have  otherwise  not  have  been  said  or  done. 
Thus  she  pleaded  with  me.  The  result  was  that  I agreed 
to  go  on  as  Hon.  Sec’y;  and,  to  relieve  her  ambitious  spirit, 
I told  her  that  I desired  her  to  have  all  possible  freedom  in 
her  daily  routine  work  as  Sec’y.  All  I asked  from  her  was 
perfect  frankness  in  our  relations  and  mutual  labors.  And 
I purposely  ever  thereafter  avoided  making  many  inquiries 
legitimately  mine  to  make,  in  order  not  to  vex  her  sensi- 
tive soul.  I kept  my  intention  so  well  that  when  in  1902 
I published  a slip,  “Status  of  the  Hon.  Sec’y,”  in  answer 
to  many  letters,  I truthfully  said  in  a footnote: 

Over  “the  ordinary  business  of  the  office,”  conducted  by  the  Secre- 
tary, such  as  recording,  receipting  for  subscriptions,  her  correspond- 
ence in  reply  to  letters,  her  solicitation  of  subscriptions,  her  keeping 


76 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


of  the  books  of  the  Secretary,  not  the  least  “control  ” has  been  exercised. 
In  these  and  like  matters  she  has  had  complete  autonomy.  She 
comes  and  goes  as  she  pleases ; fixes  her  own  vacation ; arranges  all  the 
plans  and  details  of  her  secretarial  work.  Nor  has  the  Hon.  Secretary 
ever  offered  the  least  suggestion  to  the  Hon.  Treasurer  of  his  depart- 
ment. 

Notwithstanding  my  good  reasons  for  this  adjustment, 
I unhesitatingly  declare  that  I made  a mistake  and  therein 
erred.  I plead  my  love  for  the  cause,  but  I should  have 
unalterably  decided  that  I would  not  be  associated  with  her 
— and  accordingly,  have  resigned.  No  man  has  a right  to 
sacrifice  himself  to  the  extent  that  I did.  I erred,  conscien- 
tiously. In  justice  to  myself,  I add  that  I resolutely  deter- 
mined that  if  any  troubles  occurred  thereafter  I would  re- 
sign if  Mrs.  B.  remained.  Had  I known  that  she  practiced 
a deception  upon  her  former  church  and  upon  the  Fund  by 
illegally  using  the  name  she  wTas  known  to  us  all  by  — a 
name  throughout  differing  from  her  legal  name  — I would 
have  notified  the  Comm,  that  unless  she  resigned  (or  was 
removed)  I should  instantly  sever  all  connection  wTith  the 
Fund.  Neither  Dr.  Lorimer  had  hinted  such  a fact  to  me, 
nor  had  the  former  associate  pastor  in  his  letter  to  me.  The 
latter  simply  declined  to  discuss  matters  when  written  to 
in  1902  by  her  present  pastor  in  Boston,  wThose  note  to  me 
will  appear  in  this  narrative.  Why  Mrs.  B.  was  so  anxious 
for  me  to  adjust  “differences”  wTas  that  my  resignation 
would  have  led  to  inquiries  which  would  result  in  a revela- 
tion of  the  deception  practiced  by  the  Secretary  in  appear- 
ing to  be  in  name  what  she  was  not.  She  was  not  the 
“Mrs.  B.,”  but  Mrs.  B.  writh  entirely  different  lettering  after 
the  B from  the  lettering  she  used.  But  of  such  a fact  I 
knew  nothing. 


( From  a sketch  by  Miss  Edwards.) 
THE  LATE  R.  STUART  POOLE,  D.C.L.,  LL.D. 

One  of  the  founders  of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


77 


PART  III. 

R.  STUART  POOLE,  D.C.L.,  LL.D. 

Associated  with  Amelia  B.  Edwards  in  founding  the  Egypt 
Exploration  Fund  was  Reginald  Stuart  Poole,  head  of 
the  Department  of  Coins  and  Medals  in  the  British  Museum. 
He  was  the  foremost  numismatist  in  the  world,  and  his  pub- 
lications are  standards  in  authority  and  use.  He  was  one 
of  England’s  leading  Old  Testament  scholars,  as  witness 
his  work  for  Smith’s  Bible  Dictionary.  He  was  thoroughly 
versed  in  Egyptology.  His  wide  range  of  learning  appears 
in  the  fact  that  he  wrote  for  the  Britannica  upon  Hieroglyph- 
ics as  well  as  Numismatics.  He  was  one  of  the  most  ver- 
satile lecturers  at  the  Royal  Institution  and  in  university 
courses.  Mr.  Augustus  Lowell  asked  me  to  name  to  him  a 
man  qualified  to  give  a full  course  of  lectures  upon  Old  Egypt, 
which  would  interest  as  well  as  instruct,  and  I named  Poole, 
who  conditionally  accepted  the  invitation  to  lecture  at  the 
Lowell  Institute,  Boston.  But  he  could  not  be  spared  long 
enough  from  his  duties  and  standing  engagements  to  visit 
America.  Both  Poole  and  Sir  Erasmus  Wilson  joined  Miss 
Edwards  in  founding  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund.  Sir 
Erasmus  became  its  first  president,  but  he  died  the  year 
following.  He  removed  the  obelisk  from  Alexandria  to  the 
banks  of  the  Thames.  I stood  by  the  other  obelisk,  now  in 
Central  Park,  when  it  was  deftly  lowered  from  its  true  place 
for  Central  Park.  Through  the  thoughtfulness  of  Miss 
Edwards  I have  as  mementoes  of  Wilson  his  beautiful  pri- 
vate seal  and  his  cuff  buttons.  But  for  their  modern  type 
I should  be  tempted  to  imagine  that  the  gold  buttons  (“E. 
W.”)  belonged  to  Edward  Winslow  of  Plymouth  Colony, 
whose  gold  ring  brightens  the  case  containing  his  relics  at 
Plymouth. 


78 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


It  occurs  to  me  to  add  that  I felt  America  should  recog- 
nize Poole’s  learning  and  work,  and  so  I nominated  him  to 
the  University  of  the  South  for  a D.C.L.,  as  that  institution 
confers  that  degree.  Hon.  Robert  C.  Winthrop  kindly 
seconded  my  request,  which  was  granted  in  1886.  Thus 
England  gave  him  LL.D.  (Cambridge)  and  America  D.C.L. 

Barclay  V.  Head,  Ph.D.,  D.C.L. , succeeded  to  Poole’s 
place  at  the  British  Museum.  For  some  years  he  was  upon 
the  Comm,  of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund.  The  deputy 
keeper  of  the  department  in  the  Museum  is  Herbert  Appold 
Grueber,  F.S.A.,  Hon.  Sec’y  of  the  Numismatic  Soc’y,  a 
charter  member  of  the  Fund  and  long  its  invaluable  worker 
as  Hon.  Treasurer. 

The  particularly  interesting  fact  about  this  likeness  of 
Poole  is  that  Miss  Edwards  sketched  it  for  me  from  life,  as 
a token  of  our  mutual  regard  for  so  helpful  an  associate,  so 
genuine  a man,  as  Stuart  Poole. 


To  resume  our  most  unpleasant  but  necessary  story:  the 
fiscal  year  1898  closed  on  July  31  with  peace  promised,  but 
with  doubt  in  my  soul. 

1.  Francis  C.  Foster  ruffled  the  surface  by  declining  to 
pay  for  some  typewriting  on  my  bill  for  the  year.  His  note 
harped  upon  my  sending  out  typewritten  matter  “ of  a char- 
acter defamatory  of  an  officer  of  the  E.  E.  Fund,  and,  as  I 
am  assured,  detrimental  of  both.”  I replied:  “Your  remark 
reflecting  on  me  personally  I ignore,  as  I am  striving  to  pro- 
mote peace  and  prosperity,  etc.  . . . The  typewriting  was 
for  my  official  letters  to  London,  and  one  to  yourself  (un- 
answered). When  I found  it  necessary  to  consult  with 
others  I simply  used  my  own  carbon  copies  in  turn.”  I 
referred  to  Mrs.  B.’s  “circulars”  thus:  “It  appears  not  to 
have  occurred  to  you  that  'documents’  on  our  official  paper, 
calculated  to  hurt  me,  were  paid  for  — typewriting,  post- 
ages, stationery  — by  you  as  Treasurer.  Their  indiscrim- 
inate circulation  hurt  the  Society.”  Later  he  wrote  that 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


79 


he  had  written  Mr.  Grueber  for  final  instructions,  “ but  I do 
not  propose  to  reopen  or  discuss  the  question.”  This  was 
Nov.  28,  but,  inspired  by  Mrs.  B.  he  indited  a most  personal 
letter  to  me  on  Jan.  12,  intimating  that  he  would  be  sus- 
tained by  the  Comm.  (Had  he  been  corresponding  with 
Cotton?)  Grueber,  who  by  legal  appointment  was  Foster’s 
official  correspondent,  wrote  to  me:  “I  have  told  Mr.  Foster 
that  as  in  my  opinion  your  charges  are  perfectly  legitimate 
they  should  at  once  be  paid.”  Again:  “I  do  not  consider 
it  necessary  to  wait  till  next  month  to  get  the  leave  of  the 
Comm,  that  these  charges  should  be  paid,  as  it  was  always 
understood,  in  fact  ordered,  that  all  your  expenses  incurred 
on  behalf  of  the  Fund  should  be  repaid  you.”  The  charges 
of  about  six  dollars  were  so  petty,  as  was  Foster’s  perform- 
ance, that  I told  him  the  following  spring  that  if  his  action 
implied  no  intent  to  interfere  with  my  rights  and  authority 
as  Hon.  Sec’y,  I would  pay  the  charges  out  of  my  pocket, 
and  end  the  business.  Grueber  complimented  me  on  my 
forbearance,  and  yielding  a small  point  while  holding  my 
rights.  Foster  had  said  that  Mrs.  B.  could  do  all  the  type- 
writing I needed.  Indeed!  Could  not  I make  official  com- 
munications to  the  Comm.,  if  necessary,  without  her  knowl- 
edge? Grueber  had  added:  “I  wish  you  could  devise  some 
scheme  which  would  free  you  of  such  worries.  The  Comm, 
here. are  perfectly  cognizant  of  your  great  services  to  the  Fund; 
and  the  sums  which  are  transmitted  from  your  office  bear 
witness  to  them.”  I found  Mrs.  B.  averse  to  typewriting  for 
me,  and,  .to  save  the  Fund,  I did  much  work  which  should 
have  been  typewritten.  So  in  1900  I wrote  Mr.  Grueber 
that  I would  like  to  be  officially  authorized  to  get  letters 
typewritten  when  necessary.  His  reply  will  appear. 

2.  Increase  of  Salary  for  the  Secretary.  In  the  spring 
of  1900  Mrs.  B.  alluded  to  a note  from  Cotton  in  which  he 
said  the  Comm,  favored  (or  would  favor?)  an  increase  of 
her  salary.  She  said  Foster  favored  it.  On  questioning 
him,  he  admitted  that  Mrs.  B.  first  spoke  to  him  upon  the 
matter.  She  complained  that  the  Annual  Report  lumped 
the  Secretary’s  salary  and  office  rent  together;  she  declared 


80 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


that  there  was  no  office  rent  — she  gave  the  “Office.”  I 
reminded  her  that  $200  were  added  to  the  former  salary 
of  $600,  because  her  rooms  were  to  be  our  Office.  She  now 
rec’d  $800,  but  that  included  the  use  of  her  rooms  for 
our  Office.  To  promote  peace  I decided  I would  favor  an 
increase  of  her  salary,  as  she  said  the  Comm,  would  approve 
of  it.  Accordingly,  I forwarded  to  Grueber  a letter  for  the 
Comm.  His  official  reply  of  May  2 remarked: 

The  view  held  by  you  with  respect  to  Mrs.  B.’s  salary  and  the  allow- 
ance made  to  her  for  the  use  of  her  rooms  was  that  held  by  the  Comm. 
— viz.,  that  Mrs.  B.  should  receive  a salary  of  600  dollars,  and  that  a 
further  allowance  of  200  dollars  should  be  made  to  her  for  the  use  of 
her  rooms  as  an  office,  by  this  means  saving  the  Fund  the  expense  of 
a separate  office. 

After  careful  consideration  the  Comm,  consider  that  a salary  of 
1,000  dollars,  if  they  took  Mrs.  B.’s  view  of  her  position,  would  be 
somewhat  out  of  proportion  to  the  general  receipts  from  subscriptions, 
etc.  Being,  however,  fully  sensible  of  Mrs.  B.’s  services  to  the  Fund, 
the  Comm,  are  quite  willing  that  an  advance  of  100  dollars  be  made 
to  her,  and  they  leave  it  entirely  to  you  and  your  colleagues  in  what 
manner  this  sum  should  be  allowed,  whether  as  an  addition  to  Mrs. 
B.’s  salary,  or  as  an  increased  allowance  for  the  use  of  her  rooms,  or 
for  the  rent  of  the  extra  room,  should  the  latter  be  deemed  necessary. 

I am  also  to  convey  to  you  again  the  thanks  of  the  Comm,  for  your 
continued  great  but  unremunerated  services,  and  to  inform  you  that 
if  you  can  ease  your  labors  by  having  your  letters  typewritten,  you 
must  not  hesitate  to  avail  yourself  of  that  method  at  the  expense  of 
the  Fund.  * 

Now  at  the  request  of  Foster  I had  met  him  at  the  Office 
where  I asked  to  see  Cotton’s  note  saying  that  “the  Comm, 
would  favor  an  increase  of  salary.”  It  was  not  at  hand, 
but  Mrs.  B.  thought  it  might  be  at  Foster’s  office.  I replied: 
“Very  well,  I take  your  word  for  it.”  Under  date  of  June 
6,  Grueber  officially  wrote  to  me:  “It  was  resolved  in  defer- 
ence to  your  recommendation  that  Mrs.  B.’s  salary  should 
be  fixed  at  $1,000  a year,  but  on  the  distinct  understanding 

•The  following  year  I charged  but  $4.80,  and  the  next  (1902)  but  $6.95  for 
typewriting,  the  last  year  including  my  reports  to  London  upon  the  affairs  of  the 
Office.  I wrote  at  least  1400  letters  (many  of  them  long  ones)  that  should  all 
have  been  typewritten.  My  aim  was  to  save  money  for  the  cause. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


81 


that  this  salary  includes  the  use  of  her  apartments  as  offices 
for  the  Fund.”  But  my  letter  to  Grueber  intimating  that 
Cotton’s  declaration  had  influenced  my  action  in  favor,  etc., 
elicited  from  Grueber  a note,  saying,  “I  have  just  rec’d 
your  letter,  etc.  . . . Mr.  Cotton  did  not  voice  the  wishes 
of  the  Comm.,”  etc.  It  was  clear  to  me  that  Mrs.  B.  had 
misinterpreted  what  Cotton  said. 

3.  The  Official  Letter  Paper.  Under  “Unpleasant  Dis- 
coveries” I pointed  out  how  Mrs.  B.  in  printing  our  official 
letter  paper  for  1898,  omitted  my  title  as  Hon.  Sec’y.  She 
had  no  more  right  to  do  this  than  to  omit  Hon.  Treas.  after 
Foster’s  name.  She  promised  me  she  would  not  repeat  the 
error.  But  in  writing  to  me  hastily  she  used  note  paper  from 
the  top  of  which  she  had  cut  off  our  three  names,  leaving 
simply  the  name  of  the  office  and  year.  She  sometimes  wrote 
me  upon  mutilated  sheets,  but  this  type  seemed  different  from 
that  used  for  the  authorized  note  paper.  Comparing  it  with 
the  latter,  I saw  the  difference.  Mrs.  B.  had  simply  repeated 
her  error!  I asked  her  if  we  were  nearly  out  of  letter  paper, 
as  I had  some  changes  in  view,  and  she  produced  samples. 
“Were  these  all?”  “Yes,”  she  replied.  “There  are  no 
more  printed  like  those  of  1898  without  Hon.  Sec’y  after 
my  name?”  “No,  indeed!”  came  her  reply.  Then  I showed 
the  sample  I had,  and  asked  what  it  meant.  After  an  in- 
stant’s hesitation,  she  replied  that  she  got  out  the  note  paper, 
but  it  was  “to  please  Mr.  Foster.”  “He  likes  it  better; 
thinks  it  simpler,”  etc.  She  assured  me  she  would  never 
again  make  the  least  change  in  our  letter  paper  without  my 
sanction.  Her  note  was  dated  March  2,  1900.  I asked 
Foster  if  he  had  authorized  Mrs.  B.  to  omit  Hon.  Sec’y  after 
my  name.  He  said,  “Of  course  not,”  and  when  I told  him 
the  circumstances,  he  simply  said  “it  was  all  accidental,” 
etc.  I found  the  note  paper  was  being  generally  used,  and 
Foster  began  to  use  it  in  his  official  letters  to  me.  So,  on 
May  4,  I wrote  him  most  kindly,  reminding  him  that  my 
“general  control”  in  the  Office  made  me  responsible  for  our 
official  printing  which  was  not  purely  financial,  etc.  He 
replied  that  it  “must  have  been  an  oversight”  by  Mrs.  B. 


82 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


SINGULAR  DISTRIBUTION  OF  USHABTIS. 

I pass  on  to  1901,  for  this  narrative  is  already  a long  one. 
I had  done  all  that  mortal  man  could  do  to  keep  peace,  and 
bring  prosperity  to  the  cause.  Indeed,  the  year  closing 
July  31,  attests  the  highest  Nilometer  mark  ever  reached 
financially  — though  a financial  inundation  (without  a 
Carnegie  or  Rockefeller)  would  be  impossible.  I had  thrown 
myself  into  the  effort  to  raise  funds  for  the  Graeco-Roman 
dep’t,  and  Mrs.  B.  also  pressed  its  importance  upon  sub- 
scribers. But  I was  conscious  that  “undermining”  was 
going  on  — the  aim  and  end  being  just  what  Grueber  has 
so  well  defined  — “ to  minimize  your  authority,  and  finally 
to  crush  you”  — and  Davis  has  described  to  me:  “You 
were  undermined  by  an  ambitious  and  designing  woman  ” — 
and  what  Davis  wrote  of  her  purpose  to  Darling,  viz.,  to 
ignore  me  and  put  herself  at  the  head.  (See  “Cause  of  the 
Troubles.”)  For  example,  my  correspondence  with  some 
of  the  older  subscribers  fell  off,  not  through  my  lack  of  atten- 
tion; the  notion  was  insinuated  that  she  raised  the  funds; 
and  because  they  were  sent  to  the  Office  (her  rooms)  she 
considered  that  she  raised  the  money!  Foster  more  than 
once  asked  me  what  use  I had  of  envelopes  and  for  so  much 
postage!  (She  told  him  she  raised  the  money  — that  settled 
it  !)  When  he  wanted  her  salary  raised  in  1900,  he  wrote 
to  me:  “I  am  greatly  surprised  at  the  amounts  she  brings 
me.  ...  I should  be  very  glad  to  see  her  have  this  increase, 
so  richly  earned.”  Of  course,  her  notes  to  England  “rung 
this  change”  for  all  that  it  was  worth.  Let  us  now  depict 
a few  facts. 

The  distribution  of  Ushabtis  (funerary  images)  and  Papyri 
formed  an  interesting  incident.  The  Comm,  directed  that 
the  119  papyri  should  be  sent  through  me  as  Hon.  Sec’y 
to  the  designated  institutions.  They  were  the  gift  of  the 
Fund;  Prof.  Petrie  had  found  loads  of  ushabtis  at  Abydos, 
and  they  came  to  London  with  other  objects,  as  the 
property  of  the  Comm.  It  was  voted  to  distribute  these 
thousands  of  figurines  among  English  and  American  sub- 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


83 


scribers.  When  they  arrived  at  the  Boston  Office,  and  Mrs. 
B.  was  directed  by  the  Comm,  to  distribute  them  (nearly 
all  by  mail),  I advised  her  earnestly  to  send  to  each  recipient 
a printed  card  stating  that  “ they  were  found  so  and  so,  and 
that  they  are  sent  by  direction  of  the  Comm,  with  their  com- 
pliments,” etc.,  etc.  I told  her  that  she  (not  I)  could  sign  the 
card  as  Sec’y,  and  would  thus  have  all  the  credit  for  her 
labors  of  despatch.  Later  I saw  in  the  Boston  Transcript 
(March  23,  1901),  a well-written  account  of  the  ushabtis, 
in  which,  however,  it  was  not  made  clear  that  the  figurines 
were  sent  to  the  Office  by  direction  of  the  Comm.,  and  were 
to  be  distributed  as  their  gift.  The  “cases  were  consigned 
to  Mrs.  B.,”  and  whether  Petrie,  who  unearthed  the  ushabtis, 
or  some  one  else,  “consigned”  them  was  not  stated.  Mrs. 
B.  told  me  that  that  journal,  learning  of  the  ushabtis  at  the 
Custom  House,  sent  a special  reporter  to  her,  and  he  took 
down  the  facts.  (Soon  after  I heard  a different  version, — 
that  no  reporter  was  sent  for  that  purpose,  but  that  he 
called  for  another  purpose  on  Mr.  B.,  and  “improved  the 
opportunity,”  etc.)  She  said  she  did  not  want  to  print  any 
cards,  but  purposed  to  “ advance  the  cause  ” by  writing  notes, 
descriptions,  etc.,  to  go  to  subscribers  with  the  ushabtis, 
and  thus  to  influence  some  of  them  to  increase  their  dona- 
tions. She  said  she  could  get  out  typewritten  slips  if  needs 
be.  It  so  happened  that  being  in  correspondence  with 
Woodbury  G.  Langdon,  Esq.,  of  N.  Y.  (he  sent  $50  as  a spe- 
cial donation),  he  enclosed  to  me  (to  save  explanation)  Mrs. 
B.’s  note  to  him  on  the  ushabtis.  It  read:  “Prof.  Petrie 
is  sending  a case  of  ushabti  figurines  to  me  from  Egypt,” 
etc.  I showed  this  note  to  her,  and  urged  her  to  have  the 
recipients  all  clearly  know  the  facts:  that  our  Comm,  should 
have  credit,  etc.  There  had  been  so  much  “friction”  that  I 
did  not  wish  to  insist  on  my  “general  control,”  and,  besides, 
the  Comm,  had  directed  her  to  do  the  purely  clerical  work. 

The  ushabtis  were  noticed  in  the  press,  and  for  other 
causes  various  subscribers  asked  me  who  presented  them. 
A Boston  recipient  asked  me  in  the  street  to  whom  he  was 
indebted.  He  then  enclosed  to  me  her  note  to  him  saying: 


84 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


“I  have  lately  rec’d  from  Prof.  Petrie’s  finds  a case  of  ushab- 
tis.  I take  pleasure  in  sending  one  of  the  finest  of  these 
antiquities  to  you,  with  my  very  kind  regards.”  He  wrote 
on  her  note:  “It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  much  better  for 
your  Sec’y  to  use  We  instead  of  I,”  etc.,  etc.  This  was  April, 
and  again  I kindly  cautioned  her,  but,  as  events  proved,  she 
was  on  the  highway  to  her  goal,  and  I could  not  influence  her. 

What  were  the  results?  I found  that  Mrs.  B.  was  not 
doing  her  duty  justly,  and  for  the  Fund’s  welfare.  My  duty 
was  plain.  I stated  the  facts  to  Grueber,  and  suggested  that 
in  future  antiquities  be  directed  to  me  as  Hon.  Sec’y,  and 
that  if  any  more  ushabtis  could  be  sent  I would  repair,  so 
far  as  I could,  Mrs.  B.’s  unequal  distribution.  Grueber 
replied  officially  that  “all  antiquities  and  papyri  to  pass 
through  the  Boston  Office  are  to  be  directed  to  you,”  and 
he  stated  another  vote  by  the  Comm.,  viz.,  that  nearly  100 
boxes  of  ushabtis  remained  and  would  be  sent  to  me,  etc., 
etc.  Miss  Paterson  inquired  (July  10)  if  I would  defer  re- 
ceiving them  till  autumn.  Not  till  the  following  Jan’y  did 
I receive  them. 

When  the  100  cases  (about  600  ushabtis)  arrived,  I had 
it  stated  in  the  Transcript  (Feb.  4)  that  I had  rec’d  the  in- 
voice as  Hon.  Sec’y,  “which  on  behalf  of  the  Committee  he 
is  to  distribute  as  their  gift  to  American  members  of  the 
society.”  I issued  this  card  to  send  to  some  of  the  sub- 
scribers : 

EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND  — Figurines  for  Subscribers. 

Another  assortment  of  Ushabtis,  or  figurines,  has  just  been  received 
from  the  Committee  in  London,  to  be  presented  to  subscribers.  Those 
already  sent  out  by  the  Secretary  in  Boston  were  also  direct  from 
London,  and  were  to  be  presented  in  the  name  of  the  Committee. 
This  additional  lot,  also  found  at  the  tombs  of  Abydos,  is  from  the 
office  in  London,  and  will  be  sent  in  the  name  of  the  Committee  to 
subscribers,  especially  to  those  who  have  not  yet  received  ushabtis. 
Advise 

Wm.  C.  Winslow,  Honorary  Secretary,  U.  S.  A. 

525  Beacon  Street,  Boston,  February  4,  1902. 

Rev.  J.  B.  Nies,  Ph.D.,  of  Brooklyn,  the  promoter  of 
archaeological  research,  had  written  me  upon  the  mis-dis- 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


85 


tribution  by  Mrs.  B.:  “ In  London  it  is  an  understood  thing 
that  all  subscribers  rec’d  ushabtis.  I made  application  for 
my  proportion  last  year,  and  rec’d  one.  I was  told  in  Eng- 
land that  five  or  six  are  given  with  each  subscription.”  He 
said  pointedly:  “No  officer  of  the  Soc’y  has  a right  to  make 
a personal  gift  of  any  kind  from  the  property  of  the  Soc’y 
to  the  members  of  the  same,  and  certainly  no  officer  can 
take  the  property  of  the  Soc’y  and  give  it  to  non-members 
without  being  liable  to  prosecution  under  the  criminal  law.” 
He  had  inquired  of  Grueber  respecting  the  division  of  ushab- 
tis, who  replied  to  him:  “The  mode  of  division  was  as  fol- 
lows: They  were  first  divided  into  two  equal  portions;  one  half 
for  England  and  one  half  for  America.  Miss  Paterson  then 
wrote  to  Mrs.  B.  asking  her  how  many  would  be  required 
to  satisfy  her  subscribers.  The  number  asked  for  by  Mrs. 
B.  was  dispatched.  On  Dr.  Winslow,  however,  represent- 
ing that  many  subscribers  had  not  rec’d  ushabtis,  the  Comm, 
ordered  that  all  that  remained  should  be  sent  to  him  for 
distribution.  . . . Each  box  was  supposed  to  contain  six 
ushabtis  and  each  subscriber  should  have  received  an  un- 
changed box,”,  etc. 

I officially  inquired  of  Miss  Paterson  how  many  ushabtis 
were  sent  by  her  to  Mrs.  B.  Her  reply  was,  “Eight  cases 
containing  nearly  500  boxes.”  I found  on  examining  the 
100  boxes  sent  to  me,  in  one  case,  that  they  averaged  at  least 
six  figurines  to  a box,  which  Grueber  had  said  was  true  of 
the  similar  previous  boxes.  Thus,  some  3,000  figurines 
were  placed  in  Mrs.  B.’s  hands  — enough  to  give  each  sub- 
scriber a box  (i.e.,  six  figurines  each). 

Prof.  Petrie  replied  to  my  inquiry  if  he  had  sent  ushabtis 
to  Mrs.  B.:  “I  have  personally  had  nothing  to  do  with  send- 
ing out  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  ushabtis,  and  do  not  know 
what  has  been  done  by  the  Secretary.”  This  was  Oct.  26, 
1901.  I wished  to  give  Mrs.  B.  every  chance,  and  thought 
it  possible  she  had  rec’d  figurines  from  Petrie.  I suppose 
she  wished  to  appear  associated  with  his  name,  as  she  had 
wished  to  be  with  Ebers  and  Edwards  in  press  notices. 

I reported  as  follows  to  London  on  March  28:  “I  have 
mailed  some  75  to  80  cards  respecting  ushabtis  to  subscrib- 
ers. The  result  of  about  66  replies  is  as  follows:  Of  local 


86 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


Secretaries  12  have  rec’d  none;  14,  one;  3 rec’d  2;  2 rec’d 
more.  Of  35  subscribers  and  patrons  32  rec’d  one  and  three 
rec’d  two.”  I mailed  in  all  perhaps  130  cards,  and  the  num- 
ber who  had  not  received  any  ushabtis  steadily  increased. 
I wrote  an  account  of  Ushabtis  for  Biblia,  April,  1902,  illus- 
trated, which  was  reprinted  as  a leaflet,  and  letters  from 
subscribers  stated  this  was  how  they  came  to  know  of  the 
figurines.  Judging  by  all  the  replies,  I concluded  that  only 
a small  proportion  of  subscribers  could  have  rec’d  their  full 
share  each  up  to  nearly  14  months  after  Mrs.  B.  had  received 
3,000  of  the  curios.  Applying  this  rule  to  perhaps  500  sub- 
scribers, and  the  question  naturally  arose,  “What  became 
of  all  the  ushabtis?”  I cannot  answer  the  question,  for  I 
do  not  know.  Such  local  Secretaries  as  these  had  rec’d 
none:  Stone,  Morrow,  Sturges,  Adams,  Hoppin,  Burpee, 
Hubbard,  Wade,  Goodwin,  Carter,  Woodruff,  Nevins.  Such 
as  these,  just  one  ushabti:  Riddle,  Taylor,  Blakeslee,  Co- 
bern,  Perry,  Horton,  Hall,  Ewell,  Davis.  Such  Secretaries 
as  Sloane,  Battle,  Vaux,  were  fortunate  enough  to  receive 
two  each.  Such  interested  subscribers  or  patrons  as  these 
rec’d  but  one  ushabti:  Hoffman,  Bigelow,  Gould,  Booraem, 
Brown,  Zabriskie,  Choate,  Bliss,  Bruckbauer,  Lee,  McComb, 
Hutchinson,  Huntington,  Ely,  Bowdoin,  Kennedy,  Dana, 
Farnam,  Bentley,  Taft,  Marquand,  Sharpe.  One  of  our 
most  interested  patrons  and  secretaries  from  the  first,  Mrs. 
General  J.  H.  Devereux,  of  Cleveland,  wrote:  “I  did  not 
receive  any  ushabtis  from  Mrs.  B.  or  hear  of  them  except 
through  Biblia.” 

Literature  of  the  Subject.  Let  us  quote  from  a few 
of  the  notes. 

Jeremiah  Zimmerman,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Syracuse:  “I  am 
glad  to  learn  from  you,  on  inquiry,  that  the  ushabti  which 
I rec’d  was  presented  by  the  Comm,  and  was  not  a personal 
gift  from  Mrs.  B.,  as  I inferred  from  her  letter  when  she  sent 
me  the  figurine.  ...  All  are  indebted  to  you  for  the  im- 
pulse that  you  have  given  to  the  work  in  America.”  (Mrs. 
B.  had  written:  “I  have  rec’d  a case  of  these  objects  from 
Petrie,  and  take  pleasure  in  sending  you  one  of  them.”) 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


87 


From  Mrs.  B.’s  notes  to  subscribers: 

Mrs.  Charles  E.  Wilbour,  New  York:  I am  sending  you  by  mail 
a ushabti  from  Abydos.  Prof.  Petrie  has  sent  me  a case  of  one  of 
these  little  statuettes,  and  I select  one  of  the  finest  for  you.  (This 
conveys  the  pleasing  thought  that  out  of  but  one  case,  not  8 cases, 
Mrs.  B.  selected  “one  of  the  finest”  for  Mrs.  Wilbour.) 

Caroline  H.  Dall,  LL.D.,  Washington:  When  you  are  in  Boston 
it  ■will  be  a pleasure  to  me  if  you  have  the  time  to  call  at  this  office. 
I have  many  things  to  show  you.  Lately,  Prof.  Petrie  sent  me  a 
case  of  ushabtis,  etc.,  etc. 

From  subscribers: 

Mrs.  N.  Lansing  Zabriskie,  Aurora,  N.  Y.:  I rec’d  more  than  a 
year  ago  a “ushabti  ” as  a gift  from  Mrs.  B.  (March  29,  1902). 

Mrs.  Charles  B.  Potter,  Rochester  : Mrs.  B.  has  sent  me  one 
figurine,  a small  one.  I do  not  think  I had  the  idea  from  her  letter 
that  they  were  presented  in  the  name  of  the  Committee.  I am  sure 
I thanked  her  personally  for  it. 

Miss  Mary  A.  Sharpe,  Wilkes-Barre:  Mrs.  B.  wrote  to  me  that 
Prof.  Petrie  had  sent  her  a number  of  ushabtis  and  that  she  sent  one 
to  me. 

Dean  Hoffman  wrote  to  me  on  Feb.  14,  1902:  “I  have 
received  only  one  small  ushabti  from  the  E.  E.  Fund,  and 
would  be  very  glad  to  have  some  of  them  for  our  Seminary.” 
I had  in  March,  1901,  impressed  on  Mrs.  B.  that  Hoffman 
was  richly  entitled  to  one  of  “the  best  boxes.”  He  had 
given  much  money,  and  had  just  started  a $500  “Special 
Papyrus  Fund”  with  $50.  She  assented.  But  the  Dean 
was  unsusceptible  to  her  flattery,  and  she  “cut  him  off 
with”  one  small  ushabti. 

Mrs.  Arthur  Brooks,  of  Cambridge.  To  this  lady,  the 
sister-in-law  of  Bishop  Phillips  Brooks,  Mrs.  B.  sent  a letter 
so  typical  of  her  “art  in  putting  things,”  that  I produce  it 
entire. 

Boston,  April  8,  1901. 

My  dear  Mrs.  Brooks,  — I had  a little  Easter  gift  for  you 
which  I am  one  day  late  in  sending,  but  I hope  you  will 
accept  it  now  with  my  kind  regards. 

I have  had  sent  to  me  a case  of  ushabtis  from  Abydos,  the 
result  of  Prof.  Petrie’s  work  of  last  season.  The  figurine 
is  of  the  XIXth  Dynasty,  early,  about  1400  b.c.  It  was 


88 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


the  function  of  the  beings  so  represented  to  labor  for  the 
deceased  in  the  next  world,  to  that  end  each  had  his  hoe  on 
his  shoulder  and  seed-bag  upon  his  back.  I trust  that  this 
tiny  envoy  from  the  Nile  will  serve  you  as  faithfully  as  his 
double  in  the  Upper  Egypt  is  serving  the  priest  to  whom  he 
is  dedicated. 

I beg  to  ask  your  interest  in  the  following  offer:  If  we 
complete  a special  fund  for  papyri  of  $500  before  the  last 
of  May  we  are  promised  the  last  $50.  We  have  all  but  the 
last  $80  (excepting  the  pledge  of  $50),  and  seem  to  have 
reached  a standstill.  Can  you  not  help  us  by  a five-dollar 
subscription?  The  reason  for  haste  is  the  rapid  completion 
of  the  great  barrage  at  the  1st  Cataract;  its  flood  of  waters 
will  make  Egypt  the  garden  spot  of  the  world.  The  proph- 
ecy of  desolation  to  Egypt  has  been  fulfilled  and  is  past,  now 
her  blossoming  time  is  at  hand.  Let  us  store  papyri  against 
our  day  of  failure. 

Yours  cordially, 

The  above  special  papyrus  fund  was  the  one  I started 
with  Hoffman’s  pledge  of  $50.  I found  that  Mrs.  Brooks 
had  not  received  any  ushabtis,  and  informed  Mrs.  B.  of  that 
fact.  On  Easter  Monday  Mrs.  B.  sent  one  to  Mrs.  Brooks 
with  the  above  letter,  giving  Mrs.  Brooks  the  impression 
that  it  had  been  her  intention  to  make  the  gift.  I add  that 
my  address  on  the  letter  sheet  was  inked  over  by  Mrs.  B., 
so  that  if  Mrs.  Brooks  acknowledged  her  gift  the  note  could 
not  come  to  me.  I knew  Mrs.  Brooks  a little,  but  Mrs.  B. 
did  not  know  her  at  all. 

When  I called  on  Mrs.  Brooks  and  saw  Mrs.  B.’s  letter, 
the  truth  flashed  upon  me,  but  not  till  December  did  I ac- 
quaint Mrs.  Brooks  with  the  facts,  and  I then  gave  her  to 
read  a letter  to  me  from  a former  pastor  of  Mrs.  B.  Mrs. 
Brooks  enclosed  to  me  Mrs.  B.’s  letter,  but  I do  not  feel  at 
liberty  to  print  Mrs.  Brooks’s  note  to  me,  except  to  quote 
the  following:  “I  hope  this  experience  may  soon,  for  the 
work’s  sake  as  well  as  your  own  sake,  cease  to  be  a present 
problem.  ...  I return  the  letter  to  you.  ...  It  was  un- 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


89 


warranted.”  Would  that  there  might  be  on  all  Committees 
women  of  the  high  type  of  integrity,  free  from  all  “diplo- 
macy,” which  characterizes  this  lady.  The  ladies  and  gentle- 
men upon  the  London  Comm,  were  thoroughly  informed 
respecting  the  manner  in  which  the  ushabtis  were  distrib- 
uted. That,  and  their  placing  of  Mrs.  B.  upon  the  London 
Comm.,  per  se  “utter  volumes”  upon  the  whole  subject. 

A bad  feature  of  the  “Singular  Distribution  of  Ushabtis” 
was  that  non-subscribers  should  receive  them  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  subscribers  A number  of  such  instances  have, 
accidentally,  come  to  my  personal  notice.  I end  by  describ- 
ing one  of  them.  I heard  that  a dealer  in  antiques  had 
rec’d  some  figurines  from  Egypt.  I asked  him  (at  his  store) 
if  he  had  any  ushabtis;  he  replied  that  Mrs.  B.  had  pre- 
sented him  with  some  ushabtis  from  a case  of  them  which 
Petrie  had  sent  to  her  from  his  excavations  at  Abydos.  I 
understood  him  to  say  “a  dozen  ushabtis.”  He  said  they 
were  at  his  home.  He  remarked  that  Mrs.  B.  sometimes 
called  in  to  see  the  curios  — “a  most  interesting  woman,” 
etc.  While  I was  glancing  at  his  curios  he  pointed  to  an 
antique  necklace,  saying,  “I  gave  one  like  that  to  Mrs.  B.” 
This  gentleman,  of  course,  had  no  notion  of  the  facts  as 
stated  by  me  now.  A lady  who  visited  the  store  was  told 
by  him  the  same  story  respecting  the  ushabtis. 

RECOGNITION  OF  MY  SERVICES. 

I am  glad  now  to  outline  quite  a different  chapter  in  this 
story.  When  I was  in  London  anent  the  Loring  Comm, 
matter,  the  Comm,  presented  me  with  a scarab  from  Na- 
ville’s  work  at  the  Temple  of  Queen  Hatasu  — a simple  blue 
scarab,  but  valuable  from  associations  with  it.  When  I 
received  119  papyri  from  the  Committee  for  various  institu- 
tions, in  1901,  among  them  was  a bit  of  Homer  for  me,  which 
I intensely  appreciated.  (Iliad  I,  404-447,  or  about  43  lines, 
dating  the  2d  to  3d  century  a.d.)  In  April,  1901,  I sub- 
scribed $375,  or  $125  to  each  of  the  three  departments  of  the 
Fund,  in  order  that  this  sum  might  be  applied  to  select- 
ing one  object  of  historic  value  from  Abydos  for  the  Boston 


90 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


Museum  of  Fine  Arts.  The  collection  at  Philadelphia  is 
chiefly  formed  in  this  way:  a certain  sum,  sometimes  hun- 
dreds of  dollars,  is  given  by  a person  to  the  Soc’y  there 
affiliated  with  the  Fund,  and  thus  an  entire  case  of  antiqui- 
ties is  designated  as  presented  by  the  E.  E.  F.  through  Mrs. 
Hearst  or  Mr.  Cramp,  or  some  one  to  the  Museum.  Mrs.  Stev- 
enson informed  me  that  that  was  her  special  method  in  se- 
curing funds  and  antiquities.  As  artistic  more  than  historic 
objects  had  come  to  Boston,  and  as  Loring  was  not  satisfied 
with  Boston’s  share  last  received,  I thought  that  I would 
like  to  have  an  archaic  relic  of  special  interest  from  Abydos 
for  Boston,  and  to  feel  that  'personally  I had  secured  the 
trophy.  I had  toiled  to  secure  monumental  objects,  but 
the  money  I raised  came  from  others.  I requested  that 
the  $375  be  applied  as  I desired.  The  reply  was  a grateful 
acknowledgment,  and  that  the  Comm,  had  elected  me  an 
Hon’y  Life  Member  of  each  of  the  Branches  (see  Annual 
Report).  Later,  Grueber  wrote  that  the  Comm,  had  “ thought 
it  best  that  contributors  should  arrange  it  themselves  with 
the  curators  of  the  museums  to  which  the  objects  were  as- 
signed. So  if  you  can  arrange  this  with  General  Loring, 
please  do  so.”  This  rule,  a good  one,  saved  the  Comm, 
trouble.  Grueber  stated  that  the  object  selected  to  repre- 
sent my  contribution  was  “the  Sard  and  Gold  Sceptre  of 
Khasekhemui,  the  gem  of  the  whole  collection,  and,  I think, 
will  create  wide  interest  in  your  city.”  This  trophy  will  be 
mentioned  under  “Monumental  Objects  for  Boston.” 

PRESS  NOTICES. 

Various  sketches  of  Mrs.  B.  had  appeared  from  time  to 
time  in  the  daily  papers,  nearly  all  of  them  containing  some 
high-flown  or  inaccurate  sentences  descriptive  of  her  attain- 
ments, labors,  acquaintance  with  eminent  scholars,  or  the 
like  — thus  giving  a misleading  impression  of  her  status 
and  work.  Her  likeness  appeared  in  a style  not  quite  fitted 
for  the  representative  of  a learned  body.  Beyond  caution- 
ing her  in  a kindly  way,  I paid  no  attention  to  articles 
calling  her  “America’s  foremost  Egyptologist,”  “Another 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


91 


Amelia  B.  Edwards,”  “The  Egyptian  Princess,”  etc.;  refer- 
ring to  her  rooms  as  “the  headquarters  of  the  E.  E.  F.,”  to 
her  having  “control  of  Biblia,  the  official  organ  of  the  Fund, 
and  of  other  learned  societies”;  to  her  “semi-official  con- 
nection” with  our  museum;  to  her  acquaintance  with  learned 
men  abroad  and  her  ability  “to  measure  swords  with  the 
most  erudite  Egyptian  scholars  of  the  present  day.”  Natu- 
rally, to  her  accessible  rooms,  called  “the  office,”  reporters, 
photographers,  and  inquirers  went  for  presumably  reliable 
data. 

A well-written  sketch  in  a Chicago  daily  spoke  of  the 
“high  appreciation  of  her  work”  by  Ebers  and  Edwards. 
It  stated:  “The  Archaeological  Survey  and  the  Graeco- 
Roman  branch  are  two  exploration  departments  of  which 
Mrs.  B.  has  charge,  as  well  as  of  the  Egypt  Exploration 
Fund.”  It  referred  to  her  “Management”  of  the  Fund  and 
the  departments  in  it.  I was  kindly  named  as  V.  P.  and 
Hon.  Sec’y  in  connection  with  several  other  officers;  but 
the  impression  was  clearly  given  that  the  labors  and  respon- 
sibilities of  management  were  hers.  I recognized  the  ini- 
tials appended  to  the  sketch  as  those  of  an  acquaintance. 
I questioned  this  correspondent  who  had  called  at  the  office, 
telling  her  that  I was  sure  Miss  Edwards  never  knew  Mrs. 
B.,  and  I doubted  if  Ebers  had  had  acquaintance  with  her. 
Not  long  after,  an  article  in  the  Springfield  Republican  upon 
Mrs.  B.,  copied  into  the  Evening  Post  and  elsewhere,  stated 
that  she  was  in  “charge”  of  the  Fund  in  this  country.  A 
reader  ignorant  of  her  status  and  the  work  of  the  Boston 
Office  would  receive  the  impression  that  she  “managed” 
affairs  and  did  the  work.  It  seemed  absolutely  necessary 
that  a statement  should  at  last  be  made  setting  forth  the 
true  status  of  the  Hon.  Sec’y  and  Sec’y,  and  doing  justice 
to  both.  A carefully  prepared  letter  appeared  in  the  Re- 
publican of  June  10,  1901,  quoting  the  official  language  of 
our  appointments  from  London,  and  adding  that  “the  recep- 
tion of  subscriptions,  recording  them,  receipting  for  them 
in  the  treasurer’s  name,  attending  to  the  orders  for  books, 
and  efforts  to  secure  new  subscriptions,  comprise  the  Secre- 


92 


THE  THUTH  ABOUT 


tary’s  duties  in  particular.  In  the  last-named  item  Dr. 
Winslow  takes  an  active  part,  as  newspaper  men  well 
know.” 

No  reply  could  be  made  to  the  data  in  the  letter,  for  they 
rested  on  fact  and  evidence.  The  writer  of  the  article,  an 
assistant  editor,  had  secured  her  information  from  other 
papers.  Her  article  was  moderate  and  refined,  hence  her 
statements  carried  all  the  more  weight.  In  a letter  to  Fos- 
ter I alluded  to  the  article  in  the  Republican,  and  in  his  note 
he  remarked  that  Mrs.  B.  showed  him  the  article  containing 
“much  that  was  very  annoying  to  her,  so  she  wrote  the 
Editor.”  She  found  no  fault  with  the  article  in  speaking 
to  me  of  it,  but  said  and  wrote  to  me  that  the  letter  upon 
the  article  was  inaccurate.  To  Foster  she  said  the  article 
was  “very  annoying  to  her”  — did  she,  in  writing  Mr.  Sam- 
uel Bowles,  or  to  the  writer  of  the  article,  say  that  the  article 
was  “very  annoying  to  her”?  I fancy  not.  She  invoked 
the  aid  of  Cotton,  for  a member  of  the  Comm,  wrote  to  me: 
“I  wish  to  back  your  position  as  chief  of  the  Fund  in 
America,  especially  in  the  city  of  Boston.  This  is  all  the 
more  necessary  in  the  face  of  the  letter  to  the  Republican .” 

I had  begged  Mrs.  B.  to  be  careful  not  to  sanction  officially 
books  published,  causes  presented,  etc.,  etc.  She  had  done  so 
respecting  a book,  of  which  a subscriber  complained  to  me. 
Mr.  Edmund  J.  Carpenter,  the  well-known  author,  enclosed 
a long  advertisement  from  a Boston  daily,  which  under  the 
conspicuous  heading  of  the  E.  E.  Fund,  and  over  her  sig- 
nature, commended  a patent  medicine.  This  advertise- 
ment over  her  name  had  also  appeared  in  the  N.  Y. 
dailies.  Mr.  Carpenter  remarked  that  I should  know  that 
the  Sec’y,  “Mrs.  B.  appears  to  be  using  the  name  of  the  E.  E. 
Fund  to  exploit  a patent  medicine  appliance.” 

HOW  TO  BECOHE  A MEMBER  OF  THE  LONDON 
COHMITTEE. 

This  question  Mrs.  B.  solved  with  the  aid  of  Cotton,  her 
ally.  It  was  my  custom  on  calling  at  the  Office  to  ask  if 
there  were  any  new  subscribers,  or  large  subscriptions,  to 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


93 


report.  As  Mrs.  B.  was  sensitive  regarding  my  oversight 
of  affairs,  and  regarded  the  record  books  with  a jealous  eye, 
I purposely  refrained  from  glancing  at  the  books  except 
occasionally.  Now,  I had  made  special  exertions  in  1901  to 
increase  subscriptions.  I had  written  a few  letters  thereon 
to  Pittsburg  people,  and  previously  to  officers  of  the  Pitts- 
burg Branch  of  the  Fund.  Under  the  pro  rata  plan  of  an- 
tiquities I was  trying  to  have  the  Carnegie  Museum  receive 
a just  share  of  antiquities.  In  March-May  Mrs.  B.  had 
solicited  subscriptions  from  people  of  that  enterprising  city. 
Not  only  did  she  keep  me  entirely  in  the  dark  respecting 
her  efforts,  but  to  my  usual  question,  “Any  more  subscrip- 
tions?” etc.,  etc.,  she  omitted  all  mention  of  the  fine  roll  of  sub- 
scribers from  the  City  of  Steel.  But  the  June  issue  of  Biblia 
revealed  the  full  secret.  Probably  $2,000  had  come  from 
Pittsburg  — even  the  stirring  bit  of  news  that  Mr.  H.  C. 
Frick  had  contributed  $500  was  kept  from  me!  Mrs.  B. 
made  some  lame  excuse  for  her  secretive  but  normal  methods. 
In  June  I asked  her  what  her  plans  for  summer  vacation 
were.  “ They  were  not  decided  upon.”  About  July  1,  I asked 
her  if  her  plans  were  made.  She  said  they  were  not,  but 
would  let  me  know  them.  I was  leaving  for  the  country, 
and  spoke  of  the  necessity  of  having  our  records,  etc.,  in  a 
place  safe  from  fire,  etc.  On  July  6,  she  replied  to  my  note, 
adding  that  she  would  not  overlook  giving  me  her  address; 
and  on  July  12,  her  note  did  not  even  allude  to  what  she  had 
long  planned  to  do  — sail  for  England.  It  is  to  be  expected 
that  when  a Sec’y  of  a learned  Soc’y  is  about  to  go  to  the 
meeting  of  that  Soc’y’s  Comm.  — 3,000  miles  away  — she 
would  refer  to  that  fact  in  conversation  with  the  Hon.  Sec’y 
in  “general  control,”  etc.  I declare  that  not  the  least  hint 
in  re  was  given  me  by  Mrs.  B.,  and  that  on  or  about  July  1 
she  told  me  that  her  plans  were  not  made,  etc. 

Now  I had  heard  some  time  previously  of  Mrs.  B.’s  plan 
to  go  to  London,  and  that  fact  had  made  me  question  her 
more  explicitly.  On  July  17,  on  steamer  letter  paper,  she 
wrote  to  me:  “I  had  no  time  to  write  you  until  on  board,” 
and  gave  her  address  as  the  London  Office.  I concluded 


94 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


that  her  object  was  to  confer  with  Cotton  and  misrepresent 
me  to  members  of  the  Committee.  She  would  reach  London 
long  before  my  letters  from  New  Hampshire  could.  Be- 
sides, upon  what  could  I write?  She  was  on  vacation  — 
a personal  matter  — if  going  officially,  she  could  hardly 
have  kept  that  secret.  But  the  newspapers  put  the  case 
differently,  and  one  of  these  notices,  from  the  Transcript, 

is  preserved:  “Mrs.  , American  Secretary  of  the  Egypt 

Exploration  Fund,  left  for  England  to-day  to  confer  with 
the  London  Comm,  and  arrange  for  the  year’s  work.”  I 
wrote  to  Foster  to  ask  if  her  trip  was  official,  and  if  so,  if 
the  Soc’y  paid  for  it.  He  replied : “ In  no  sense  that  I know 
of,  is  her  trip  an  ‘official’  one.  . . . The  London  Comm, 
have  not  ‘ requested  her  presence  ’ in  any  way,  to  my  knowl- 
edge.” Of  the  Transcript  item  he  remarked:  “The  report- 
ers always  know  more  than  others ! ” 

Why  Mrs.  B.  had  kept  from  me  the  knowledge  of  Pitts- 
burg’s splendid  subscriptions,  and  of  her  trip  to  London 
will  now  appear.  Verily,  truth  is  stranger  than  fiction. 

On  August  11  came  a letter  from  Grueber,  incidentally 
remarking:  “Mrs.  B.  arrived  here  last  Friday,  too  late  for 
the  distribution  of  the  objects  which  was  completed  on  the 
previous  Wednesday.”  He  had,  however,  looked  after  the 
interests  of  the  Boston  Museum.  On  Aug.  26,  Grueber 
remarked  that  Mrs.  B.  had  attended  a Comm,  meeting. 
“She  was  put  on  the  Comm,  to  represent  Pittsburg.  I 
think  this  was  a mistake,  as  I believe  she  was  only  asked 
to  represent  that  museum  at  the  distribution.  Cotton  was 
against  me,  and  I could  not  fight  the  question  in  her  pres- 
ence.” I saw  at  once  why  Mrs.  B.  had  kept  me  out  of  touch 
with  Pittsburg  and  its  Carnegie  Museum.  The  branches 
had  each  a representative  as  a regular  member  of  the  London 
Comm.  — Chicago  and  Phila.  e.g.  — but  Pittsburg  had 
none.  Here  was  her  chance,  and  Cotton  to  help  her! 

I wrote  W.  J.  Holland,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  director  of  the 
Carnegie  Museum,  and  on  the  Pittsburg  Branch  Comm.,  to 
ask  if  he  would  give  me  the  facts  in  the  matter.  I quote 
from  his  reply: 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


95 


. . Mrs.  B.,  whom  we  had  every  reason  to  believe  was  thoroughly 
responsible  and  acting  under  your  control  and  with  your  approval, 
early  in  the  present  year  wrote  to  me  and  to  others  urging  the  impor- 
tance, at  an  early  date,  of  raising  money  to  secure  whatever  of  interest 
might  be  secured  before  the  completion  of  the  great  dam  at  Assouan 
should  flood  the  surrounding  country.  I wrote  personal  letters  to  a 
number  of  my  friends,  and  in  a short  time  raised  over  $2,000,  which 
with  subscriptions  directly  solicited  by  Mrs.  B.  from  other  Pitts- 
burghers and  paid  in  by  them  to  the  Boston  office  raised  our  con- 
tributions for  the  year  to  something  like  $2,500,  if  I remember 
rightly. 

“ Mrs.  B.  subsequently  wrote  that  she  expected  to  be  in  London  at 
the  time  that  the  annual  distribution  (of  antiquities)  would  be  made, 
and  said  that  she  would  be  pleased  to  act  as  our  representative  at  the 
distribution,  if  requested  to  do  so She  was  by  a formal  resolu- 

tion requested  to  act  as  our  representative,  and  received  from  Rev. 
Mr.  Farmer,  our  Sec’y’s  official  notification  of  the  fact.  ...  So  far 
as  the  actions  of  Mrs.  B.,  your  assistant,  are  concerned,  we  had  no 
reason  to  think  that  what  she  did  was  without  your  consent  and  ap- 
proval, and,  as  far  as  we  knew,  by  your  suggestion,  in  all  probability.” 

Dr.  Holland  stated  that  Mrs.  B.  upon  her  return  sent  to 
him  a list  of  the  objects  for  the  Carnegie  Museum  which,  if 
“not  representing  anything  like  an  adequate  return  for  the 
money  expended,”  would  make  him  content  in  view  of 
the  representations  of  Mrs.  B.  that  it  represented  an  earnest 
and  sincere  effort  by  London  to  appreciate  Pittsburg’s 
special  efforts.  But  he  had  that  day  (Oct.  10)  rec’d  from 
Cotton  “ a list  which  does  not  agree,  except  in  certain  minor 
particulars  with  the  list  sent  me  by  Mrs.  B.  . . . A number 
of  items  catalogued  in  the  first  list  are  omitted,  and  others 
of  trifling  importance  are  substituted.”  I urged  upon  Lon- 
don the  importance  of  doing  justly  and  generously  by  Pitts- 
burg. In  justice  to  the  Comm.,  I can  only  judge  from  a list 
sent  to  me,  on  Dec.  13,  by  Dr.  Holland,  that  the  objects 
actually  rec’d  were  better  and  more  than  he  had  anticipated 
from  Cotton’s  list.  How  Mrs.  B.’s  list  and  Cotton’s  dis- 
agreed so,  I cannot  say.  Nor  do  I know  whether  Mrs.  B. 
informed  Dr.  Holland  that  she  reached  London  after  the 
distribution  was  made  or  left  him  to  infer  that  she  was 
present. 


86 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


But  the  essential  point  now  is  how  came  Mrs.  B.  to  be  a 
member  of  the  London  Committee? 

On  Oct.  11,  Grueber  wrote  to  me  semi-officially,  in  re : 
“I  have  already  expressed  my  opinion  about  Mrs.  B.,  and 
I still  think  her  election  a very  great  mistake.  Mr.  Cotton 
brought  it  up  without  previous  notice,  but  I objected.  It 
was,  however,  impossible  for  me,  with  Mrs.  B.  present,  to 
offer  a vigorous  opposition.  I have  never  before  heard  of 
a paid  secretary  being  a member  of  the  Committee  which 
has  the  direction  of  her  work,  her  appointment,  etc.”  Grue- 
ber was  both  legal  and  right.  Her  election  to  be  a member 
etc.,  has  no  precedent  in  England  or  the  United  States.  Nor 
do  members  of  the  Comm,  and  officers  like  Pres’t,  V.  P., 
Hon.  Sec’y,  Hon.  TTeas.,  receive  any  salary.  Yet,  she  a 
member  of  the  London  Comm,  de  facto  (if  not  de  jure),  rec’d 
salary  as  a paid  clerk.  Nor  could  the  note  from  Mr.  Farmer 
be  honestly  interpreted  to  mean  anything  but  what  it  stated 
— that  she  was  to  act  for  Pittsburg  simply  at  the  distribu- 
tion of  antiquities  in  London  in  July,  1901.  I called  for  this 
note  in  Jan’y,  1902,  in  the  presence  of  a member  of  the  Lon- 
don Comm.,  and  carefully  noted  its  contents  when  it  was 
read  aloud.  Those  present  at  the  Comm,  meeting  when 
Grueber  objected  should  have  supported  him.  No  matter 
if  Mrs.  B.  had  impressed  certain  members  of  the  Comm, 
that  she  had  raised  the  $2,500,*  or  inspired  the  raising  of  it; 
and  had  impressed  a few  of  the  Comm,  as  she  had  an  Ameri- 
can woman,  that  “she  was  the  life  and  soul  of  the  Fund  in 
the  U.  S.,” — the  Comm,  of  a learned  soc’y  should  not  have 
committed  such  a solecism.  The  Hon.  Sec’y,  a lawyer, 
acted  as  her  attorney  in  getting  this  vote  passed.  Were  she 
ignorant  of  his  intention  (?)  she  should  instantly  have  cor- 
rected his  error. 

To  make  “assurance  sure,”  I inquired  of  Rev.  W.  R. 
Farmer,  Sec’y  of  the  Pittsburg  Branch,  if  Mrs.  B.  was  then 
officially  representing  that  Branch,  and  under  date  of  Oct. 
30,  he  replied:  “I  will  say  that  Mrs.  B.  is  not  in  any  way 

* I suppose  the  |t>50  which  Mr.  Henry  Phipps  sent  to  me  was  apart  of  the  $500 
Dr.  Holland  attributed  to  Mrs.  B. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


97 


officially  connected  with  the  Pittsburg  Branch.”  In  Decem- 
ber, a lady  who  had  called  upon  me  to  make  inquiries  re- 
garding Mrs.  B.,  said  she  had  understood  that  Mrs.  B.  was 
a member  of  the  London  Comm.  It  was  reported  about 
Boston  as  one  of  her  “honors.”  This  lady,  to  whom  I gave 
a true  version  of  the  “honor,”  wrote  Mr.  Farmer  for  the 
facts.  She  brought  his  reply  to  me:  “I  will  say  that  Mrs. 
B.  was  elected  by  the  Pittsburg  Branch  to  look  after  our 
interests  at  the  distribution  of  antiquities  in  London  last 
summer.  That  appointment  was  not  considered  by  us  as 
involving  any  permanent  arrangement.”  As  for  her  being 
upon  the  London  Comm.,  he  added:  “We  have  never  elected 
or  appointed  any  one  to  act  as  our  representative  on  the 
London  Committee.”  When  Dr.  Holland  kindly  prepared 
and  mailed  to  me  a list  of  antiquities  received  from  the  dis- 
tribution, he  remarked  upon  Mrs.  B.’s  election:  “As  you 
have  already  been  informed  by  Mr.  Farmer,  and  as  I have 
myself  informed  you,  Mrs.  B.  suggested  to  us  that  as  she 
expected  to  visit  London  she  would  like  us  to  authorize  her 
to  represent  the  institution  at  the  time  of  the  distribution  of 
specimens.”  (Italics  mine.)  . . . “That  she  should  appear 
officially  as  our  permanent  representative  on  the  Committee 
was  certainly  not  our  thought.”  This  was  mid-December, 

1901. 

As  was  my  duty,  I stated  the  facts  of  the  case  and  evidence 
so  that  the  London  Comm,  could  avoid  further  error  — 
such  as  publishing  Mrs.  B.  as  a member  of  it.  But  the  vol- 
umes and  Annual  Report  in  sequence  published  her  name 
under  “Members  of  the  Committee,”  adding  “(for  Pitts- 
burg) ” after  her  name.  The  Comm,  voted  the  last  of  April, 

1902,  that  her  position  as  Sec’y,  mine  as  Hon.  Sec’y,  should 
terminate  in  July,  1902.  And  yet  the  vol.  “ Abydos,  Part  I, 
1902,”  which  reached  this  country  hot  from  the  press,  in 
August,  without  our  names  as  officials,  still  contained  her 
name  as  a member  of  the  London  Comm.!  This  illegal 
action  of  July,  1901,  was  maintained  in  July,  1902.  I say 
illegal  intelligently.  To  represent  Pittsburg  she  must  have 
been  nominated  by  that  Branch.  She  was  not  nominated, 


98 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


and  accordingly  the  initial  step  was  not  taken.  It  would 
be  somewhat  analogous  to  the  Senate’s  confirming  a man 
who  had  not  been  appointed  by  the  President. 

In  the  spring  of  1902, 1 heard  a Baptist  minister  at  a well- 
attended  meeting  in  Boston  speak  of  Mrs.  B.’s  “distinguished 
services  and  learning  in  the  cause  of  Egyptology,”  and 
classifying  her  with  Maspero,  Naville,  and  Edwards.  As 
evidence  thereof,  “she  was  Corresponding  Sec’y  of  the  E.  E. 
F.,  an  honor  in  itself,  and,  last  summer  was  invited  over  to 
London  by  the  Comm.,  who,  in  recognition  of  her  scholar- 
ship and  great  services,  elected  her  a member  of  their  Com- 
mittee — a very  great  honor,”  etc.  Mrs.  B.  sat  on  the 
platform  and  allowed  his  statement  to  pass  as  truthful. 
The  minister’s  “information”  must  have  come  from  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  B. 

Francis  C.  Foster  was  present  and  heard  these  statements, 
and,  I think,  joined  in  the  applause  following  the  minister’s 
remarks.  Foster,  it  will  be  recalled,  had  written  to  me: 
“ In  no  sense,  that  I know  of,  is  her  trip  an  ‘ official  ’ one.  . . . 
The  London  Comm,  have  not  ‘requested  her  presence’  in 
any  way.” 

This  episode  of  how  Mrs.  B.  became  a member  of  the  Lon- 
don Committee  well  illustrates  her  career  as  Sec’y.  But 
more.  The  action  of  the  Comm,  was  reprehensible;  and 
when  its  members  knew  the  facts  of  the  case,  as  they  surely 
did,  the  continuance  of  such  a mistake  was  unpardonable. 
Here  I cannot  see  one  particle  of  extenuation  for  those  mem- 
bers who  knew  the  circumstances,  and  attended  the  meet- 
ings. The  Pittsburg  Branch  was  and  is  absolutely  free 
from  all  blame.  It  generously  contributed,  with  the  aid 
of  loyal  Pittsburghers,  to  the  cause,  and  whether  it  rec’d 
a fair  pro  rata  of  the  antiquities  is  not  for  me  to  say. 
The  London  Comm,  should  have  promptly  rectified  their 
mistake  and  rebuked  Cotton  for  his  un-Secretarylike  con- 
duct. 

But  Mrs.  B.  had  been  to  London,  and,  as  Dr.  Beecher, 
already  quoted,  says,  “ I know  of  no  infatuation  more 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


99 


hopeless  than  that  of  a body  of  respectable  men  when  they 
fall  under  the  dominion  of  a sharp  woman.” 

PRINTING  SECRETLY  DONE. 

Under  “Unpleasant  Discoveries”  I spoke  of  how  Mrs.  B. 
printed  our  letter  paper  for  1898  without  my  title  of  Hon. 
Sec’y,  and  again  in  1900,  secretly,  note  paper  with  the  same 
omission.  It  seemed  best  to  me  that  subscribers  should 
be  able  to  address  me  without  their  letters  always  going 
through  Mrs.  B.’s  hands  — their  notes  might  be  very  per- 
sonal, or  making  complaints.  So  I prepared  a form  for 
letter  and  note  heads,  using  our  seal.  In  the  least  conspic- 
uous type  was  printed  after  my  name  in  the  corner  my 
address.  But  the  Office  and  its  address  were  the  feature 
of  the  sheet.  Foster’s  name,  at  the  top,  was  repeated  at  the 
foot  of  the  sheet  with  the  statement  that  cheques  should  be 
made  payable  to  his  order.  This  arrangement  would  allow 
me  to  go  less  to  the  Office,  and  save  Mrs.  B.  trouble  in  for- 
warding mail  exclusively  for  the  Hon.  Sec’y.  As  a fact, 
however,  my  own  mail  continued  to  go  more  to  the  Office 
than  to  my  house.  Mrs.  B.  had  approved  heartily  and 
commended  the  neat  appearance  of  our  letter  and  note 
paper.  There  seemed  a continuous  falling  off  in  letters, 
sometimes  in  expected  replies  from  subscribers.  This  was 
very  marked  in  the  spring  of  1901.  Just  before  I left  Bos- 
ton in  the  summer  a lady  handed  me  a note  to  her  from 
Mrs.  B.,  which  she  asked  more  light  upon.  In  it  I found 
that  a notification  drawn  up  and  signed  by  me  Jan.  2,  1899, 
had  been  changed.  Mrs.  B.  had  removed  my  signature  and 
substituted  Foster’s  signature  to  something  he  had  not, 
but  I had,  written.  I determined  to  adjust  this  matter  in 
the  fall.  That  summer  I found  that  Mrs.  B.  had  secretly 
printed  letter  paper,  using  our  official  seal,  and  omitting 
my  address.  She  had  also  erased  my  address  on  the  author- 
ized paper  in  her  correspondence.  Her  object  obviously 
was  to  keep  me  from  knowing  what  she  was  about  — e.  g., 
suppose  Pittsburg  subscribers  had  written  to  me,  then  I 
might  learn  of  her  plans  relating  to  that  Branch.  Now  the 


100 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


seal  had  been  entrusted  to  me,  and  I was  charged  with  its 
proper  use.  I was  in  “general  control”  at  the  Office,  Foster 
was  not;  and  yet  the  following  Jan’y  he  had  to  acknowl- 
edge that  he  knew  of  Mrs.  B.’s  secretly  printing  the  letter 
paper,  and  he  paid  the  bills  for  the  same,  but  that  he  kept 
the  matter  secret  from  me.  To  be  just  to  him,  he  remarked 
that  he  considered  the  Office  address  alone  on  the  letter 
paper  sufficient.  On  my  return,  late  Sept.,  I asked  Mrs.  B. 
why  she  had  printed  this  other  form  of  letter  heads,  and 
without  my  knowledge.  She  flared  up  with  the  remark: 
“I  won’t  have  your  address  on  our  letter  paper,”  and  pro- 
ceeded to  say  that  she  could  run  the  Office  without  my  aid. 
Before  I left  she  suggested  that  the  note  heads  I could 
still  use,  and  gave  me  a package  of  them.  She  said  the 
note  heads  had  not  been  changed.  But  I soon  found  that 
she  had  printed  changed  note  heads  as  well  as  letter  heads! 
I called  her  attention  to  this,  and  said,  “How  do  you  dare 
to  do  such  things?”  Dramatically  she  replied,  “I  dare  do 
anything,  and  you  will  find  it  out  sometime.”  It  must  be 
remembered  that  she  was  then  fresh  from  Cotton  and  from 
her  election  as  a member  of  the  London  Comm.;  that  Foster 
was  her  tool,  and  Cotton  her  ally  and  attorney;  and  some 
allowance  can  be  made  for  her  language. 

A word  respecting  Foster  and  Mrs.  B.  All  the  circulars 
specified  conspicuously  that  cheques  were  to  be  payable  to 
him;  the  blank  subscription  forms  to  fill  out,  for  all  the 
departments,  had  his  name  alone;  the  book  orders  for  li- 
braries, ditto;  the  receipts  of  all  kinds,  ditto.  One  blank 
was  printed  that  stated,  “ Pay  cheques  to  the  order  of  the 
Hon.  Treas.,”  and,  at  his  request,  his  name  was  appended.  I 
wished  in  every  way  to  gratify  his  vanity  and  to  make  peace. 
Mrs.  B.  used  constantly  a larger  or  smaller  stamp  upon 
packages,  often  on  circulars  and  letters,  bearing  her  name 
alone  after  that  of  the  Fund  and  before  the  address.  The 
Fund  and  Office  address  alone  were  ample.  But  it  was  a 
matter  of  taste,  and  I did  not  care  to  question  what  was  not 
vital. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


101 


I communicated  to  Grueber  my  official  views  of  Mrs.  B.’s 
removal  of  my  address,  and  a copy  of  my  letter  to  Foster. 
He  replied:  “I  quite  approve  of  your  letter  to  Mr.  Foster, 
and  I am  sending  your  official  letters  to  Sir  John  Evans  for 
his  consideration,  and  to  see  what  course  should  be  taken. 
It  is  an  unwarranted  act  of  insubordination  for  Mrs.  B.  to 
erase  your  address.  ...  It  was  clearly  laid  down  after  your 
visit  here  that  you  were  to  control  the  Boston  Office,  and 
therefore  what  you  propose  is  only  carrying  out  this  injunc- 
tion.” 

Later  came  a note  from  Grueber  saying:  “Sir  John  took 
a serious  view  of  the  case,”  and  enclosing  a copy  of  an  official 
note  to  Foster,  as  follows: 

British  Museum, 

14  October,  1901. 

Dear  Mr.  Foster:  I have  received  from  Dr.  Winslow  a communica- 
tion respecting  the  erasure  of  his  address  from  the  official  note  paper 
of  the  E.  E.  Fund  by  Mrs.  B.;  and  he  has  also  sent  me  copies  of  his 
letters  to  you  of  the  30th  Sept,  and  2d  Oct.  on  this  subject.  ...  I 
deemed  it  best  to  submit  the  correspondence  to  our  President,  Sir  John 
Evans,  and  seek  his  advice. 

In  consequence  Sir  John  has  desired  me  to  write  to  you  and 
to  tell  you  that  in  his  opinion  Mrs.  B.  has  acted  very  WTongly  in  eras- 
ing Dr.  Winslow’s  address,  and  that  in  fact  such  an  act  amounts  to 
a great  breach  of  authority,  as  the  control  of  the  work  of  the  Boston 
office  was  placed  by  the  Committee  in  the  hands  of  Dr.  Winslow. 

Will  you  therefore  be  so  good  as  to  see  Mrs.  B.  and  caution  her; 
and  also  see  that  the  error  is  rectified?  . . . With  regard  to  Dr.  Wins- 
low’s letter  to  you  of  the  2d  Oct.,  I think  his  proposals  reasonable, 
as  they  will  prevent  such  contretemps  in  the  future.  . . . 

A SINGULAR  CONSULTATION. 

On  October  30,  I met  Foster  by  appointment  at  the  Office. 
Grueber’s  official  letter  (see  above)  was  read  by  Foster,  and 
I stated  that  upon  the  official  letter  paper  my  name  and 
address  ought  to  appear  in  the  form  I desired  it;  that  Foster’s 
name  could  be  printed  as  he  wished  it  to  appear.  Then 
Mrs.  B.  began  to  read  letters,  or  extracts  therefrom,  from 
Cotton,  and  actually  based  her  authority  upon  a letter  to 


102 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


her  from  Cotton,  dated  Aug.  6,  1897,  before  the  Comm,  had 
legally  defined  the  status  of  our  respective  positions  of  Hon. 
Sec’y  and  Sec’y.  At  most,  Cotton’s  letter  was  an  individual 
opinion.  But  it  had  not  the  least  relevancy  to  our  status 
or  to  the  point  discussed  — the  official  note  paper  and  print- 
ing. Foster  sneered  at  the  opinion  of  Evans  and  Grueber, 
and  said  his  own  opinion  was  based  upon  Cotton’s  views  as 
defined  by  Mrs.  B.  from  his  letters.  I declared  that  Mrs. 
B.’s  citations  were  irrelevant,  and  quoted  from  memory 
the  official  definition  of  our  powers.  (See  “Cause  of  the 
Troubles.”)  When  Foster  remarked  that  he  had  no  trouble 
in  business  relations  with  the  Sec’y  — she  brought  him  sub- 
scriptions monthly  — and  all  went  well,  and  remarked  upon 
my  responsibility  for  the  trouble,  this  dialogue  occurred: 
Winslow.  “Mr.  Foster,  why  compare  our  positions?  I 
am  placed  in  general  control  over  the  work  of  this  office;  I 
have  to  come  here  frequently  to  arrange  this  work  with  the 
Sec’y,  and  to  plan  my  own  labors  accordingly.  You  con- 
sented to  act  as  Treasurer  upon  the  understanding  that  no 
work  of  any  kind  was  to  devolve  on  you.  My  position  is 
entirely  unlike  yours  in  — .”  But  Foster  burst  out:  Foster. 
“Yes,  thank  God!  my  work  is  entirely  unlike  yours,  and  I 
am  unlike  you  from  the  crown  of  my  head  to  the  sole  of  my 
feet.” 

I walked  up  to  Foster  and  said:  “Mr.  Foster,  I am  a 
gentleman,  and  I am  here  to  be  treated  as  such.”  He  re- 
plied: “What  did  you  say  your  position  was  unlike  mine 
for?”  I replied:  “You  did  not  let  me  finish  my  sentence. 
I said  that  your  position  is  entirely  unlike  mine  in  the  work 
of  this  Office.” 

I read  a brief  paper  defining  several  points,  such  as  that 
the  official  printing  is  under  my  supervision;  that  the  Sec’y 
should  not  use  the  official  seal  without  my  sanction;  that 
official  records  and  correspondence  are  to  be  open  to  the 
inspection  of  Foster  and  Winslow;  that  the  Sec’y  should 
keep  a distinct  record  of  the  publications  rec’d,  and  ex- 
changed or  sold  by  her;  that  I could  examine  the  bills  of 
the  Office  before  they  went  to  Foster  if  I so  desired;  that 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


103 


the  “Office”  in  Boston  is  to  be  open  during  business  hours 
to  any  official  calling  on  the  business  of  the  Fund. 

Here  are  a few  of  the  reasons  why  I had  drawn  up  this 
paper:  (o)  To  prevent,  as  Grueber,  to  whom  I sent  a copy, 
wrote,  “to  prevent  such  contretemps  in  the  future”  respect- 
ing note  paper,  etc.,  etc.  ( b ) To  know  just  how  the  vols.  of 
the  Fund  were  disposed  of,  and  to  whom  each  vol.  went. 
I refer  to  vols.  sent  to  the  Office  and  not  those  sent  from  Lon- 
don in  regular  orders  to  subscribers.  The  value  of  the  pub- 
lications thus  sent  that  year  (1901)  footed  up  $400  to  $500. 
( c ) To  have,  if  possible,  more  needed  regularity  of  hours 
for  attendance  at  the  Office  by  the  Sec’y;  but  not  in  any 
way  to  curtail  her  doing  her  work  at  other  hours.  To  pre- 
vent her  giving  business  hours  of  the  forenoon  to  callers 
not  upon  the  business  of  the  Fund.  Could  she  fall  back 
upon  the  specious  plea  that  her  rooms  were  the  Office,  and 
could  therefore  close  them  to  any  official  of  the  Fund  at  any 
moment  she  pleased,  then  she  could  have  a caller  and  be 
“not  at  home”  to  any  other  caller.  She  always  insisted 
that  her  salary  did  not  include  the  use  of  her  rooms  as  an 
“office,”  as  that  term  is  usually  used.  I exercised  the 
utmost  courtesy  in  entering  the  “office,”  and  in  (too  often) 
regulating  my  calls  for  her  convenience. 

After  I read  the  paper  at  this  “Consultation,”  Mrs.  B. 
treated  me  with  gross  disrespect  in  word  and  manner,  but 
I paid  not  the  least  attention  to  her.  She  said:  “I  should 
think  Dr.  Winslow  would  have  had  spirit  enough  to  resign 
when  the  Comm,  declined  to  let  me  go.”  Repeatedly  she 
alluded  to  this.  She  remarked:  “When  I was  in  London 
I arranged  with  Miss  Paterson  to  take  your  name  off  the 
blanks  placed  in  the  books  for  acknowledging  their  receipt.” 
“ I guess  your  subscription  for  getting  an  object  for  the 
Museum  won’t  turn  out  as  you  want  it  to,”  etc.,  etc.  I 
saw  through  her  efforts  to  enrage  me  and  simply  snubbed  her. 

As  we  broke  up  to  go,  and  Foster  was  putting  his  overcoat 
on  in  her  bedroom,  Mr.  B.  came  in.  These  were  his  words: 
“Well,  ‘ Maimy,’  you  can  rely  on  that  London  Comm,  every 
time  — on  Louis  Dyer,  Cotton,  , , and  the  rest  of 


104 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


’em  ” (naming  three  or  four),  but  emphasizing  Dyer  and  Cot- 
ton. He  turned  to  me  with  a not  malicious  grin,  remarking: 
“It  ain’t  no  use,  Doctor;  Mrs.  B.’s  got  control  of  that  Comm., 
and  they  won’t  stand  any  more  trouble.  Next  time,  some- 
body’s head  will  go  off  — guess  it  will  be  yours.” 

Some  days  later,  Mrs.  B.  sent  to  me  a copy  of  her  “min- 
utes ” of  this  consultation.  She  mailed  her  report  of  it  at 
once  to  London  that  it  might  reach  there  before  my  corrected 
copy  could.  Her  minutes  were  absurd  throughout.  No 
vote  had  been  taken  on  anything;  we  were  not  a committee; 
I put  nothing  to  vote.  Yet  of  the  six  points  in  the  paper  I 
had  presented,  her  minutes  stated,  “ Each  head  was  discussed 
and  voted  against  by  the  Hon.  Treas.  and  Sec’y.”  Also,  she 
omitted  the  most  important  thing  of  all  discussed,  viz.,  the 
official  opinions  of  Evans  and  Grueber  adverse  to  Mrs.  B., 
which  she  and  Foster  refused  to  accept  — the  latter  stating 
that  his  authority  was  Cotton  and  not  Evans  or  Grueber.  I 
recalled  how  Cotton  wrote  to  Foster  in  the  fall  of  1897  that 
in  case  of  any  trouble  with  me,  he  (Foster)  might  rely  on  his 
(Cotton’s)  support. 

COTTON  IS  KING. 

On  receiving  the  copy  of  Mrs.  B.’s  “minutes  ” I sent  a clear 
and  explicit  statement  regarding  them  and  the  whole  case  to 
President  Evans,  remarking  that  “the  position  taken  by 
Mrs.  B.  is  not  at  all  tenable.  No  legal  or  equitable  interpre- 
tation of  the  Resolutions  (of  appointment)  can  sustain  it. 
Mr.  Foster  has  no  powers  of  decision,  in  the  routine  work  or 
‘ important  business  ’ of  the  Office.  These  are  the  properties 
of  the  Sec’y  and  Hon.  Sec’y.  He  can  no  more  dictate  to  the 
Hon.  Sec’y  just  how  the  latter’s  address  is  to  be  printed  on 
our  letter  paper  than  the  Hon.  Sec’y  can  dictate  to  him  the 
form  of  his  financial  stationery  or  concerning  his  methods  of 
keeping  the  accounts.”  But  Cotton,  Foster,  and  Mrs.  B.  had 
not  been  idle,  and  a resolution  of  Nov.  5 passed  my  letter  to 
Evans  on  the  Atlantic.  It  arrived  on  Nov.  18  and  stated 
that  in  the  opinion  of  the  Comm,  the  address  of  the  Office 
"only  should  be  given  in  all  official  correspondence.”  Another 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


105 


Resolution  had  been  passed  “that  the  Hon.  Treas.  and  the 
Hon.  Sec’y  be  requested  jointly  to  draw  up  a scheme  of  the 
duties  of  the  Sec’y,  and  submit  it  for  approval  to  the  Commit- 
tee in  London.” 

Grueber  expressed  regret  at  the  former  resolution,  which 
was  in  the  teeth  of  what  Evans  and  he  had  declared.  He 
said,  “However,  you  must  now  stand  by  your  guns.”  He 
stated  that  the  point  was  made  at  the  Comm,  meeting  that  it 
is  usual  to  use  official  addresses  only  of  the  societies  in  Eng- 
land, and  he  added,  “ after  all  it  is  only  an  expression  of  opin- 
ion.” In  Jan’y,  referring  to  this  action,  he  said,  “There  is 
no  doubt  the  root  of  the  evil  is  that  Mrs.  B.’s  wish  is  to  get 
the  upper  hand  in  the  Fund,  and  to  weaken  your  influence. 
This  is  her  aim,  and  it  remains  to  be  seen  who  is  the  stronger.” 
To  my  statement  (as  above)  Evans  on  Nov.  23  replied:  “I 
am  in  receipt  of  your  two  letters,  one  of  which  I will  bring 
before  the  Comm,  at  their  next  meeting.  Nothing,  however, 
can  well  be  done  until  we  have  Mr.  Foster’s  and  your  joint 
scheme  of  the  duties  of  the  paid  Secretary.  Mrs.  B.  appears 
to  me  entirely  to  misapprehend  her  position.” 

Not  only  was  I in  “ general  control  ” over  the  work  of  the 
Boston  Office  by  the  resolutions  of  appointment,  but  the 
exact  and  legal  definition  of  the  order  of  our  positions  was: 
“The  Hon.  Sec’y,  the  Hon.  Treasurer,  the  Sec’y  shall  to- 
gether constitute  the  Boston  Office.”  The  resolution  for  a 
“Scheme of  Duties  of  the  Sec’y  ” placed  Foster’s  name  before 
mine  purposely,  for  in  all  subsequent  communications  to  me 
through  Cotton  this  was  done.  Grueber,  who  referred  to  the 
change,  bade  me  not  mind  it.  It  was  a straw,  however,  in- 
dicating the  way  the  wind  was  blowing.  Let  us  turn  to  the 
title  page  of  the  annual  reports,  and  we  shall  find  that  Hon. 
Secretary  U.  S.  A.  always  precedes  Hon.  Treasurer  U.  S.  A. 
There  was  not  the  least  argument  for  this  action  by  Cotton 
(and  others?),  and  against  it  the  law,  the  custom,  the  right. 
What  cannot  partizanship  do  that  is  mean,  especially  in  try- 
ing to  maintain  a weak  and  wrong  position? 

Comments  on  the  action  of  the  Comm,  respecting  my  ad- 
dress on  official  letter  paper:  We  had  no  organization  here, 


106 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


as  in  England,  nor  an  Office  like  that  in  London.  I had  no 
Comm,  to  appeal  to,  and,  in  some  sense,  I,  in  “general  con- 
trol ” over  the  office,  had  delegated  to  me  a sub-committee’s 
authority,  amenable,  of  course,  to  London.  My  status,  ex- 
perience, services,  entitled  me  to  full  consideration,  and  if  my 
judgment  was  that  my  address  in  small  type  after  my  name 
was  advisable,  the  Comm,  should  not  have  reversed  it  except 
for  good  reasons,  assigned.  The  conditions  in  England  and 
here  were  not  comparable,  but  distinct;  and,  moreover,  pre- 
vious professions  of  wishing  to  follow  my  wishes,  to  follow 
those  of  American  subscribers,  loud  and  long,  seemed  to  be 
now  melted  into  thin  air.  To  place  all  the  correspondence 
in  Mrs.  B.’s  hands  for  her  to  read  or  forward  to  me  — even 
notes  of  privacy  for  me  respecting  her  mismanagement  — 
was  not  just  to  me  or  wise  for  the  Fund.  Cotton,  moreover, 
repeatedly  put  his  private  address  on  official  or  like  letters  of 
importance,  and  it  is  placed  after  his  name  in  the  Annual 
Report. 

Mrs.  B.  had  told  me,  “I  dare  do  anything,”  at  our  inter- 
view described  in  “Printing  Secretly  Done,”  which  see.  Not 
content  with  erasing  my  address,  printing  mew  letter  paper  to 
suit  her  taste  (irrespective  of  my  address),  she  “dared”  do 
and  did  this:  Foster’s  name  had  long  been  placed  both  at  the 
top  and  bottom  of  our  letter  and  note  paper,  the  latter  stat- 
ing that  cheques  were  to  be  made  to  his  order.  She  printed 
a slip  in  red  ink  of  five  lines  relating  to  Foster  and  cheques; 
so  that  in  three  places  his  name  appeared  in  her  letters  to 
subscribers.  I found  that  she  had  pasted  out,  or  over,  even 
my  name  as  V.  P.  and  Hon.  Sec’y!  One  instance:  The 
following  note  is  from  Mrs.  Charles  E.  Wilbour,  chief  founder 
of,  formerly  and  now  President  of  the  Sorosis  Club  of  New 
York.  She  was  long  in  Egypt. 

40  Central  Park  South, 

New  York,  March  18,  1902. 

Dear  Dr.  Winslow:  ...  In  this  I enclose  the  note  I received  from 
the  Sec’y  with  the  slip  pasted  over  your  name.  . . . The  Sec’y  has 
three  times  asked  for  my  yearly  subscription,  but  when  I rec’d  the 
note  I now  send  to  you,  with  your  name  covered,  I did  not  quite 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


107 


understand  whether  you  were  yet  associated  with  the  work,  or  whether 
the  Sec’y  was  gratifying  herself  in  the  little  meanness.  But  I shall 
send  to  Mr.  Foster  the  subscription  quite  soon.  . . . 

Very  truly  yours, 

Charlotte  B.  Wilbour. 

My  name  was  completely  pasted  over  and  covered  by  Mrs. 
B.’s  red-ink  notice.  One  more  case : Our  Official  circular,  over 
my  official  signature,  was  doctored  in  the  same  way  by  this 
red-ink  notice  placed  over  my  signature  as  V.  P.  and  Hon. 
Sec’y. 

Addresses  of  subscribers  refused.  In  the  spring  of 
1901, 1 desired  to  have  a list  of  subscribers’  addresses,  to  save 
time  going  to  the  Office  for  them,  and  Mrs.  B.’s  time  also.  I 
had  only  an  old  list  of  years  back  and  imperfect  at  that.  But 
we  were  busy  in  May  and  June  raising  funds,  and  Mrs.  B. 
promised  to  have  the  list  ready  for  me  in  the  fall.  But  her 
visit  to  London,  and  “the  march  of  events,”  encouraged  her 
to  do  as  she  pleased.  On  Nov.  10,  she  wrote,  “ Will  prepare 
the  list  as  soon  as  possible  — by  the  last  of  this  week.”  I 
had  many  letters  to  write,  and,  as  will  appear,  I did  not  wish 
to  be  going  to  the  Office.  On  Dec.  11,  she  wrote,  “I  will  get 
out  the  list  of  names  directly.”  On  Dec.  18,  “Your  list  is 
in  preparation.  But  for  a lecture  would  have  finished  it  to- 
day.” On  Dec.  19,  she  refers  to  having  other  work  to  do,  and 
eyes  troubling  her.  But,  on  Dec.  21,  she  throws  off  the  mask, 
and  writes:  “Mr.  Foster  has  rec’d  a copy  of  the  Resolutions 
passed  by  the  London  Comm,  at  the  meeting  of  Dec.  7,  in 
lieu  of  which  he  now  instructs  me  to  give  no  list  of  our  sub- 
scribers to  any  one.” 

Do  my  readers  grasp  this  outrageous  assumption  of  au- 
thority by  Foster?  A recently  appointed  member  of  the 
Comm.,  an  American  who  is  a temporary  resident  in  London, 
being  about  to  visit  his  family  at  Christmas,  had  been  asked 
by  the  Comm,  to  go  to  Boston  during  his  stay  in  America, 
under  the  Resolution,  “That  Major  Cassatt  be  requested  to 
enquire  on  behalf  of  this  Comm,  into  the  constitution  and  pre- 
sent condition  of  the  Boston  Office  and  report  thereon,  making 
any  suggestions  that  appear  desirable,  especially  with  regard 


108 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


to  its  future  management,  and  having  power  to  request  the 
assistance  of  an  advisory  Comm,  of  gentlemen  and  ladies 
interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  Fund.”  He  had  no  authority 
but  to  report  his  views  to  London  (which  he  did),  and  get  to- 
gether a Comm,  of  advice  (which  he  did  not  do).  I could 
with  more  propriety  have  directed  Mrs.  B.  not  to  pay  another 
cent  over  to  Foster,  or  to  recognize  him  in  any  way,  for  I was 
in  general  control  of  the  work,  and  her  routine  work  was  sub- 
ject to  my  general  control.  Yet,  for  me  to  have  done  so 
would  have  been  ultra  vires.  Now  my  interview  with  Foster, 
on  Dec.  14,  to  be  described,  may  throw  light  on  this  action 
of  his  on  Dec.  21.  All  goes  to  show  that  Foster,  Cotton,  Mrs. 
B.  were  deliberately  plotting  to  get  me  out  of  the  Boston 
Office.  Indeed,  the  storm  had  broken  on  Dec.  14,  and  this 
was  only  some  of  the  accompanying  sheet-iron  thunder.  The 
Rev.  Dr.  D.  L.  Miller  of  Mount  Morris,  111.,  long  a local  Sec’y, 
wrote  to  me  last  Jan’y,  when  he  knew  of  the  circumstances 
connected  with  this  miserable  business : “ Clearly  to  my  mind 
an  intrigue  was  gotten  up  to  oust  you  and  to  deprive  you  of 
your  well-earned  and  well-deserved  place  in  the  Soc’y,  and 

an behind  it.  One  must  exclaim,  Can  such  things  be 

possible!  ” 

What  must  Mrs.  B.’s  influence  on  Foster  have  been,  let  my 
intelligent  readers  judge,  for  my  business  now  is  with  facts. 
Through  Cotton  she  felt  sure  of  the  London  Committee;  Fos- 
ter was  her  tool;  she  would  make  a decided  if  bold  move  to 
overthrow  the  Boston  Office  as  constituted,  and  be  appointed 
by  London  the  sole  Secretary,  with  Foster  as  Treasurer.  If 
I could  not  be  forced  to  resign  — and  she  had  not  yet  suc- 
ceeded in  her  efforts  — she  would  throw  her  final  card  down 
— and  win ! But,  in  her  temerity  and  wild  ambition,  she 
forgot  the  old  adage  that  those  who  live  in  glass  houses  must 
not  throw  stones.  Her  ambition  conquered  her  former  fear 
that  the  truth  about  herself  might  become  known  to  me  and 
others  of  the  Society. 

So  the  storm  broke,  as  will  now  be  made  manifest. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


109 


PART  IV. 

THE  OUTBREAK. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Mrs.  B.,  immediately  after  the 
consultation  on  Oct.  30,  1901,  sent  so-called  minutes  of  that 
meeting  to  London.  She  mailed  to  me  several  days  later  her 
carbon  copy  of  those  “ minutes.”  She  did  not  intend  that  I 
should  send  to  London  any  correction  of  her  misstatements 
till  the  following  week.  But  she  did  not  enclose  to  me  a 
copy  of  her  comments  upon  my  paper,  “Work  in  the  Boston 
Office,”  which  I read  at  the  meeting.  These  comments  were 
mailed  by  her  to  Cotton  as  an  official  document;  they  were 
marked  “To  be  read  to  the  Committee  ”;  and,  bearing  Fos- 
ter’s approval,  represented  the  view's  of  tw'o  departments  of 
our  Office.  Mrs.  B.  affixed  her  name  officially  to  the  commu- 
nication. It  will  also  be  recalled  that  Foster  and  I had  been 
requested  by  the  London  Comm,  to  prepare  a “Scheme  of 
Duties  of  the  Secretary  ” and  submit  it  to  London  for  ap- 
proval. I met  Foster  at  his  office  for  this  purpose  on  Dec. 
14,  1901.  I prepared  a very  liberal  scheme  for  my  proposi- 
tions. I found  at  Foster’s  office  a young  lady  whom  he  had 
secured  as  an  expert  stenographer. 

As  Foster  held  in  his  hand  a paper  that  he  wdshed  to  read, 
I postponed  my  own.  After  he  had  read  a paragraph  or  two, 
he  exclaimed,  “You  know  all  about  this  paper  — there ’s  no 
use  reading  it.”  I replied  that  it  was  entirely  new  to  me. 
He  said  that  Mrs.  B.  sent  me  a copy  of  it  with  her  “minutes.” 
I told  him  that  I did  not  receive  a copy  of  the  paper  that  he 
was  reading.  So  he  continued  the  criticisms  upon  my  “ Work 
at  the  Boston  Office,”  which  I had  read  at  the  consultation  on 
Oct.  30.  There  were  six  heads.  That  Foster  could  be  so 
weak  as  to  allow  Mrs.  B.  to  twdst  my  paragraph  upon  “official 
correspondence  ” as  she  did,  and  then  to  fall  back  upon  an 


110 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


obsolete  personal  letter  of  Cotton’s  as  the  living  official  guide 
superior  to  the  authoritative  resolution  of  the  Comm.,  passed 
my  understanding. 

To  reveal  her  hypnotic  influence  upon  this  man,  I will  cite 
the  paragraph:  “All  the  official  records  and  correspondence 
and  printed  matter  at  the  Office  are  to  be  open  to  the  inspec- 
tion of  the  Hon.  Sec’y  or  Hon.  Treas.”  I now  quote  her 
“twist,”  etc.:  “5.  To  submit  all  ‘official’  correspondence  to 
Dr.  Winslow  is  to  place  in  his  hands  the  affairs  of  the  Pitts- 
burg Branch;  all  letters  sent  by  me;  all  letters  rec’d  from  the 
U.  S.  and  abroad;  some  such  as  relate  to  my  own  personal 
affairs.”  “This  annuls  the  official  instructions  of  Aug.  6,  1897 : 
‘ Though  Dr.  Winslow  holds  an  office  (V.  P.)  superior  to  your 
own,  you  are  not  his  subordinate,  nor  bound  to  take  orders 
from  him.’  ” “ Our  objections  (those  of  Foster  and  Mrs.  B.) 
were  based  upon  this  letter  of  Aug.  6,  1897,  and  the  official 
letter  of  Nov.  3,  1897,  confirming  its  instructions.”  Its  in- 
structions (those  of  Cotton)  could  not  be  “confirmed,”  for  in 
October,  1897,  the  Committee  passed  the  Resolution  defining 
our  status  and  powers,  which  became  our  law  and  guide 
(see  Resolutions  under  “Cause  of  the  Troubles”).  But  what 
said  this  “official  ” letter  of  Nov.  3 from  Cotton,  as  quoted 
by  Foster  and  Mrs.  B.?  “ We  thought  we  were  doing  every- 

thing possible  to  protect  your  position  by  expressly  stating 
that  you  should  conduct  the  ordinary  work  of  the  office  on 
your  own  responsibility.” 

Who  is  responsible  for  such  suppressio  veri  in  quoting  from 
an  official  document?  Cotton?  or  Foster  and  Mrs.  B?  For 
the  law  enacted  by  the  Comm,  reads:  “The  Sec’y  shall  con- 
duct the  ordinary  business  of  the  office  in  Boston  on  her  own 
responsibility,  subject  to  the  general  control  of  the  Hon. 
Sec’y.”  Here  was  Foster,  educated  as  a lawyer,  having  the 
care  (it  is  said)  of  his  wife’s  large  property  — a man  most 
exact  in  the  letter  rather  than  the  spirit  of  things  — and  with 
the  Resolutions  defining  our  respective  Powers  before  him  — 
allowing  Mrs.  B.  to  fool  him,  or  Cotton  to  deceive  him,  in 
wording  such  an  important  document  as  he  endorsed  to  go 
to  our  Committee. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


Ill 


Nor  had  I used  the  word  “submit,”  but  simply  stated  that 
official  correspondence  should  be  open  to  “inspection  ” (not 
by  Dr.  W.  alone)  by  either  Foster  or  myself. 

This  perversion  of  word  and  fact  well  illustrates  Mrs.  B.’s 
subtlety  of  insinuation,  and  either  Foster’s  astounding  blind- 
ness and  weakness,  or  the  direct  personal  influence  upon  him 
by  the  Sec’y  when  she  was  with  him.  Her  eyes  became  his. 

To  illustrate  “Philip  drunk  and  Philip  sober,”  I ask  my 
readers  to  peruse  again  what  my  paragraph  at  the  Consulta- 
tion stated,  and  what  Foster  and  Mrs.  B.  made  it  say,  and  to 
read  what  Foster  at  this  Conference  instantly  assented  to  as 
just  and  proper  when  I read  it  from  my  proposed  scheme  of 
Mrs.  B.’s  duties  as  follows:  “Sixth.  All  the  official  records, 
correspondence  and  printed  matter  at  the  Office  shall  be  open 
to  the  inspection  of  the  Hon.  Sec’y  or  Hon.  Treasurer.” 

These  are  the  very  words  which  I had  read  at  the  “ Singu- 
lar Consultation  ” on  Oct.  30 ! 

But  now  the  outbreak.  Let  me  depict  the  scene. 

Foster  read  to  me  Mrs.  B.’s  paper  of  “Reasons,”  and  came 
to  the  concluding  paragraph,  which  in  the  most  matter-of- 
fact  way  he  read  as  follows:  “That  Dr.  Winslow’s  official  calls 
(at  the  Office)  should  be  confined  to  the  hours  between  4 and 
6 p.m.  refers  to  himself  alone,  and  is  necessary  to  protect  the 
interests  of  the  Fund  as  well  as  to  protect  myself  from  his 
further  persecutions.  Mr.  Buckman  is  always  at  home  by 
4 o’clock,  relieving  me  from  the  necessity  of  receiving  Dr. 
Winslow’s  calls  when  alone.”  “Please  to  read  that  again, 
Mr.  Foster,”  I exclaimed.  Then  I said:  “This  is  an  outrage, 
and  an  insult.  Did  you  get  me  here,  in  the  presence  of  this 
lady,  to  insult  me  in  this  gross  manner?  And  do  you  approve 
of  this  statement  by  Mrs.  B.?”  He  replied:  “Yes,  Sir,  I do 
approve  of  it.”  I proposed  going  at  once.  He  rejoined, 
“You  can  go  if,  you  like.”  It  flashed  upon  me  that  Mrs.  B. 
would  report  to  London  that  I declined  to  confer  with  Foster, 
as  the  Comm,  had  requested.  I determined  to  restrain  my- 
self and  demand  an  explanation  as  soon  as  Foster  and  I were 
alone.  I read  to  him  my  proposed  scheme,  and  to  nearly  all 
of  it  he  assented.  Our  amended  form  was  taken  down  by 


112 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


the  stenographer,  who  was  to  mail  a typewritten  copy  to 
each  of  us. 

When  we  were  alone,  Foster  remarked  that  he  should  sub- 
mit the  scheme  to  Mrs.  B.  for  her  approval.  I replied  that 
he  and  I were  alone  requested  to  prepare  this  scheme.  I 
handed  Foster  a circular-slip  drawn  up  and  signed  by  me,  but 
from  which  Mrs.  B.  removed  my  signature  and  substituted 
his.  I told  him  that  she  had  done  this  secretly,  and  added: 
“Is  this  right?  ” He  replied  that  he  would  speak  to  her  and 
have  the  mistake  “ corrected.”  He  remarked  that  Mrs.  B. 
informed  him  that  no  new  circulars  were  needed,  and  he  hinted 
that  he  did  not  wish  to  pay  for  any  new  circulars.  January 
1st  was  at  hand,  and  I knew  that  we  should  soon  be  out  of 
circulars,  and  those  for  1902  should  be  at  once  printed.  But 
I did  not  care  to  fight  this  point  then.  In  a few  weeks  Gen. 
Darling  of  Utica  and  others  were  writing  me  that  they  could 
obtain  no  circulars  from  Mrs.  B.  I wrote  her  regarding  cir- 
culars, and  she  laconically  replied:  “Circulars  exhausted.” 
Can  my  readers  grasp  my  situation?  Foster  would  pay  bills 
for  Mrs.  B.’s  printing  of  note  paper,  illegally  omitting  my  title 
of  Hon.  Sec’y,  but  would  refuse  to  pay  for  the  lawful  circu- 
lars, lawfully  drawn  up  by  me,  and  needed  for  our  work  and 
cause.  Because  Mrs.  B.  did  not  mean  to  have  my  name  go 
out  any  more  as  connected  with  the  office  business,  the  cir- 
culars must  not  be  printed. 

I told  Foster  that  as  between  gentlemen  I demanded  to 
know  what  he  and  Mrs.  B.  meant  by  the  outrageous  and 
insulting  insinuation  in  the  clause  read  by  him?  He  replied: 
“I  cannot  tell  you.  I don’t  pretend  to  know  all  about  the 

affairs  of St.  You  can  ask  Mrs.  B.  yourself.”  I got  no 

more  satisfactory  response  than  this  evasive  talk.  Had  I 
known  then  of  another  vile  invention  that  Foster  had  re- 
peated, I fear  my  hand  would  have  seized  his  collar!  I said: 
“Do  you  know  where  Mrs.  B.  attends  church?”  “Why, 
Tremont  Temple,  of  course.”  “Do  you  know  this?”  “I 
suppose  so,  from  what  Mr.  and  Mrs.  B.  say.”  “ Do  you  know 
anything  about  Mrs.  B.  previous  to  her  being  Sec’y?  ” “Not 
a thing.”  “Have  you  ever  inquired  about  her?  ” “I  don’t 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


113 


care  to.”  “Did  you  know  that  she  pretended  great  friend- 
ship for  Loring,  but  worked  hard  to  get  him  out?  ” Rather 
sneeringly  he  replied:  “That  would  be  a double  part.” 

A day  or  two  later,  I called  on  Foster  and  borrowed  his  car- 
bon copy  of  Mrs.  B.’s  and  his  criticisms  sent  to  Cotton  “to 
be  read  to  the  Comm.”  They  were  dated  Nov.  1,  nearly  seven 
weeks  before,  and  were  intended  to  poison  members  of  the 
Comm,  against  me.  Here  let  me  be  fair  to  Foster.  He  de- 
clared on  Dec.  14  that  Mrs.  B.  told  him  she  had  sent  a car- 
bon copy  to  me  with  her  “minutes.”  I give  him  this  benefit 
of  a doubt.  She  deceived  him. 

Here  is  another  clause:  “The  official  printing  has  been  in  the 
charge  of  the  Sec’y  since  her  election  to  that  office,  at  one 
third  the  cost  formerly  to  the  Fund  on  account  of  the  whole- 
sale rates  secured  through  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  B.’s  business 
as  wholesale  stationer  and  manufacturer.”  This  would  make 
the  London  Comm,  feel  that  she  ought  to  be  practically  in 
“charge  ” of  the  business  of  the  Boston  Office.  “ Wholesale 
manufacturer  ” would  cause  a laugh  among  all  who  know 
Mr.  B.;  but  to  some  of  the  English  ears  would  be  inspiringly 
grand.  President  Evans  is  classified  as  “formerly  paper 
manufacturer  ” in  “Who ’s  Who?  ” 

Now  I had  purposely  refrained  from  looking  into  the  office 
accounts.  I never  turned  a leaf  to  read  even  an  item,  for  I 
wished  to  keep  absolutely  clear  from  the  least  contact  with 
Foster’s  department  as  Treasurer.  But  I did  speak  of  this 
discount-of-one-third  business  to  Foster.  I asked  him  what 
the  previous  annual  circular  had  cost  to  print,  and  he  wrote 
down:  “5,500  circulars  $25,  Grseco-Roman  3,300,  $15,  Total 
$40.”  Then  he  remarked  how  nice  it  was  for  us  to  secure 
such  large  discount  through  Mr.  B.  I said  that  if  $40  repre- 
sented a third  off,  the  bill  at  retail  would  properly  be  $50  or 
$60.  Foster  had  previously  commended  the  large  savings 
to  us  through  such  discounts.  What  is  meant  by  in  “her 
charge  ”?  The  clerical  part  of  the  duty,  going  to  the  printer, 
etc.,  etc.  But  it  was  my  part  to  prepare  the  copy  except 
when  secretly  changed  by  Mrs.  B. 

To  Mr.  Samuel  Usher,  one  of  our  most  reputable  printers, 


114 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


I took  a copy  of  each  of  the  two  circulars,  and  asked  him  what 
the  price  would  be  to  print  5,500  copies  of  one  and  3,300 
of  the  other.  He  replied:  $36.50.  I asked  if  $37  would  fully 
cover  at  retail  the  cost.  Certainly,  he  said.  I returned  to 
Foster,  pointed  out  the  figures,  and  named  the  printer.  He 
made  little  comment,  but  looked  surprised.  Then  he  re- 
marked that  Mrs.  B.  told  him  she  preferred  the  circular-slip 
(to  which  I called  his  attention  on  Dec.  14)  should  be  without 
my  name,  and  he  added:  “I  must  insist  on  it  also.”  I re- 
plied, “Mr.  Foster,  what  now  is  there  left  for  me  as  Hon. 
Sec’y  to  do?  ” He  replied,  good  naturedly,  “There ’s  a great 
deal  left  for  you  to  do  — you  can  help  Mrs.  B.  in  getting 
subscriptions.” 

Before  I speak  of  the  storm  following  the  outbreak,  I add 
that  I wrote  to  London  officially  respecting  the  comments 
of  Mrs.  B.  as  approved  by  Foster,  which  had  been  sent  to 
Cotton  to  present  at  the  monthly  Comm,  meeting,  Dec.  3. 
I took  up  several  of  her  points,  such  as  printing.  Very  briefly 
I touched  upon  the  “Office  Calls,”  saying  that  “on  Oct.  30 
last  I determined  never  to  be  alone  at  the  Office  with  Mrs. 
B.”  On  that  occasion  her  language  and  defiant  manner  had 
brought  to  mind  her  criticisms  to  me  upon  her  former  pastor, 
and  the  note  from  his  former  associate.  I added  to  the  above 
sentence: 

I confine  my  criticism  of  Mrs.  B.’s  singular  language  to  two  brief 
quotations:  1st,  her  former  (associate)  pastor  writes  to  me : “ I never 
saw  either  Mr.  or  Mrs.  B.  alone,  nor  did  I visit  them  except  in  the 
company  of  my  wife.  My  own  conduct  says  a good  deal  more  about 
my  opinion  than  I care  to  express  in  writing.”  ...  A physician  who 
has  prescribed  for  her,  writes:  “She  is  a very  ambitious  woman,  and 
everything  has  got  to  fall  before  her  in  order  to  attain  her  ambition.” 
Any  one  in  her  way  in  the  management  of  our  affairs  has  got  to  “fall 
before”  her  ambition,  or  be  “persecuted.”  If  she  will  make  such  an 
absolutely  untrue  and  unjust  statement  to  our  Comm,  concerning 
myself  as  that  sent  to  London,  I am  forced  to  reply,  and  can  continue 
to  do  so,  if  necessary,  from  documents  in  my  possession.  I deplore 
the  necessity. 

I felt  bound  to  touch  briefly  but  decisively  upon  the  wo- 
man’s preposterous  invention,  for  she  had  got  a subtle  hold 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


115 


upon  a few  of  the  Comm.  So  I touched  upon  the  danger  to 
any  one’s  being  alone  with  her  or  B.  owing  to  their  inventive 
tongues.  Ever  since  the  fall  of  1897,  I had  always  kept  the 
door  of  the  Office  open  during  my  calls,  and  I took  with  me  a 
list  of  items  of  business  and  executed  them  with  dispatch. 
It  became  most  unpleasant  for  me  to  transact  business  with 
Mrs.  B.  after  I discovered  her  traits  of  character  in  the  fall  of 

1897.  In  the  summer  of  1902  I met  Mrs.  , who  had 

been  in  the  same  house  with  Mrs.  B.  She  said  she  was 
struck  with  the  circumstance  that  during  my  calls  on  Mrs. 
B.  the  door  was  left  open,  and  often  in  passing  by  she  would 
see  me  at  the  desk  or  busy  with  papers. 

THE  STORH. 

A Startling  Statement.  In  December  a well-known 
Boston  lady,  a writer  of  repute,  active  in  society  work,  called 
on  me  to  inquire  regarding  Mrs.  B.  of  whom  she  had  heard. 
I said  little,  but  I advised  her  to  go  to  some  of  the  Tremont 
Temple  people  and  others.  In  perhaps  a fortnight  she  called 
with  further  information.  She  inquired  about  the  Fund. 
After  I had  spoken  of  my  troubles  she  said  Mr.  Foster  should 
know  of  the  facts  she  had  learned;  but  I told  her  it  was  use- 
less to  try  to  make  him  see  things  as  they  were.  She  was 
indignant  when  I told  her  of  the  scene  between  Foster  and 
myself  at  our  conference  for  preparing  the  scheme,  etc.  A 
little  later  on,  she  came  to  me  with  startling  intelligence.  She 
stated  that  on  her  own  responsibility  she  had  called  on  Foster; 
that  their  conversation  became  confidential  and  could  not  be 
repeated,  — but  that  one  of  his  remarks  was  so  outrageous 
that  she  felt  it  her  duty  to  put  me  on  my  guard.  She  stated 
that  Foster  told  her  “ that  Dr.  Winslow  was  compelled  to  leave 
a parish  as  its  rector,  owing  to  his  improper  conduct  towards 
the  women  of  the  parish.”  She  instantly  asked  Foster  from 
whom  he  got  his  information,  and  he  replied:  “Mr.  and  Mrs. 
B.  told  me  so.”  She  asked  for  the  name  of  the  parish,  and 
he  said  it  was  Lee.  She  expostulated  with  him  for  accepting 
such  a slander  against  such  a man  as  myself  from  such  per- 
sons. She  recalled  what  Gen.  Loring  said  to  her  a little  be- 


116 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


fore,  when  she  incidentally  referred  to  how  much  I had  done 
for  the  Museum.  8he  said  Loring  remarked:  “I  don’t  be- 
lieve in  Dr.  Winslow/’  but  both  being  in  haste,  he  added, 
“Just  find  out  why  Dr.  Winslow  left  (or  had  to  leave)  a parish 
where  he  was  rector,  and  you  will  see  what  I mean.”  I ques 
tioned  this  lady  closely  in  the  presence  of  another  party, 
upon  both  the  foregoing  statements,  both  then,  since,  and 
very  recently,  and  she  repeatedly  gave  the  same  answer. 

She  mentioned  calling  upon  a number  of  persons,  among 
them  Mrs.  B.’s  present  pastor,  to  make  inquiries,  but  I am 
not  at  liberty  to  quote  their  remarks,  nor  do  I care  to  narrate 
here  what  information  she  obtained,  or  I obtained  from  a fewr 
calls  which  I then  made  for  inquiries.  After  Foster’s  aston- 
ishing action  at  our  conference  (see  “The  Outbreak  ”)  I was 
prepared  for  anything,  but  this  intelligence  determined  my 
course  instantly.  I consulted  Hon.  F.  D.  Allen,  the  ex-Dis- 
trict  Att’y  for  the  U.  S.,  late  of  the  Governor’s  Council,  who 
pronounced  the  affair  a gross  outrage.  He  wrote  a courteous 
but  decisive  note  to  Foster,  asking  him  to  withdraw  his  state- 
ments and  that  “Dr.  Winslow’s  only  remedy,  unless  you 
withdraw  such  statements,  is  an  action  at  law.”  Even  if 
Foster  withdrew  his  slanders  great  mischief  had  been  done 
me.  Evidently  he  had  conferred  with  Loring,  and  his  entire 
attitude  towards  me,  his  own  reports  to  London,  had  been 
tinctured  by  such  poison.  I saw  also  the  reason  why  that 
Western  subscriber  (see  “Unpleasant  Discoveries”)  had  so 
unaccountably  written  me  curtly  in  reply  to  a letter.  For 
Loring  had  written  to  him  in  Mrs.  B.’s  interests  when  I re- 
ported to  London  that  she  should  resign.  And  doubtless 
Foster  and  Cotton  had  written  to  him.  Foster  got  a lawyer 
to  call  on  Allen.  Foster  seemed  disinclined  to  disclaim  any- 
thing. But  Allen  followed  up  the  interview  with  decisive 
letters.  I was  in  dead  earnest.  Here  was  I,  a reputable 
clergyman  of  the  Diocese  of  Massachusetts,  befouled  in  order 
that  plotters  in  a learned  body  might  oust  me  from  office 
therein!  In  the  course  of  two  or  three  weeks,  after  “back- 
ing and  filling  ” in  reply  to  two  decisive  and  final  questions, 
which  I had  instructed  Allen  to  put,  Foster’s  lawyer  wrote 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


117 


that  Foster’s  attitude  regarding  my  calls  at  the  office  “was 
based  entirely  upon  what  Mr.  and  Mrs.  B.  told  him”  and  that 
“my  client  has  no  knowledge  of  the  reasons  that  led  to  Dr. 
Winslow’s  withdrawal  from  Lee.”  His  action  calling  for  the 
first  question  was  a recorded  fact  — he  could  not  dispute  it — 
so  I had  simply  demanded  from  whom  he  got  his  information. 
But  his  reply  regarding  Lee  was  evasive  — for  did  or  did  not 
Foster  say  to  the  lady  what  she  stated  he  had  said  to  her  ? 
“ No  knowledge  of  the  reasons  ” was  evasive.  So  Allen  wrote 
for  a distinct  disclaimer  regarding  his  statement  about  the 
parish.  On  Jan.  29,  the  reply  came  that  “Mr.  Foster  dis- 
claims having  said  or  intimated  anything  in  connection  with 
Dr.  Winslow’s  relations  with  his  parish  at  Lee,  for  he  has  no 
knowledge  of  the  matter.” 

This  lady  had  immediately  procured  a copy  of  the  resolu- 
tions passed  at  a parish  meeting  when  I declined  to  recon- 
sider my  resignation  and  purposed  to  remove  to  Boston.  She 
took  a copy  of  the  resolutions  to  Foster,  who  replied  as  he 
handed  them  back,  “That  alters  the  case,  and  seems  to  settle 
that  point.”  In  the  face  of  such  evidence  Foster’s  “atti- 
tude ” changed,  and  he  tried  to  take  a back-track  as  dis- 
creetly as  he  could. 

So  base  was  the  B.’s’  invention  that  I hesitate  to  print  the 
resolutions : 


RESOLUTIONS. 

Whereas,  the  Rev.  W.  C.  Winslow,  Rector  of  St.  George’s  Parish, 
Lee,  has  deemed  it  hi6  duty  to  resign  the  rectorship  of  this  church, 
which  resignation  has  been  accepted  by  the  Parish  to-day,  we  desire 
to  express  to  Mr.  Winslow,  and  to  place  upon  record,  such  testimonial 
of  respect  and  esteem  as  is  due  from  a grateful  people  to  a faithful 
Rector  who  has  endeavored  to  do  his  whole  duty  to  his  people,  him- 
self, and  to  God. 

Therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  Mr.  Winslow  has  the  thanks  of  the  Parish  for  the 
able  and  faithful  manner  in  which  he  has  discharged  his  duties  as 
Rector  for  three  and  one-half  years;  so  faithful  and  earnest  in  pro- 
claiming and  defending  the  doctrines  of  the  church,  so  enterprising 
and  untiring  in  successfully  carrying  forward  the  embellishments  and 
improvements  upon  the  Church  edifice,  and  that  we  will  ever  hold  in 


118 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


grateful  remembrance  himself  as  Rector,  friend,  citizen,  and  as  a 
Minister  of  the  Gospel,  and  bid  him  “Godspeed”  in  whatever  field 
he  may  be  called. 

Charles  Barnes, 

Geo.  F.  Neale, 

Geo.  E.  Callendar, 

Committee  of  Parish. 

A successor  of  mine  at  Lee  hearing  of  this  invention 
promptly  expressed  his  indignation  in  a way  that,  I judge, 
reached  Foster’s  ears.  Did  Foster  (intentionally  or  innocently) 
slander  me  to  this  lady?  I believe  he  said  to  her  just  what 
she  stated  he  did  — for  these  reasons : 1st,  This  lady  did  not 
know  that  I had  been  at  Lee,  nor  that  there  was  such  a place 
as  Lee,  till  Foster  referred  to  it*  2ndly,  Why  did  she  pro- 
cure the  resolutions  and  take  them  to  Foster  if  “Lee  ” had 
not  been  mentioned?  3rdly,  Foster’s  attorney,  when  he  met 
Allen,  referred  at  once  to  this  lady  as  the  one  who  charged 
Foster  with  this  slander.  If  Foster  had  not  discussed  the 
matter  with  her,  why  should  he  date  the  charge  of  slander  to 
her  call  on  him?  4thly,  The  letters  from  Foster’s  attorney 
show  that  Foster  did  say  something  against  me,  for  he  refers 
to  Foster’s  remarks  to  his  caller  as  “privileged  ” and  “con- 
fidential.” 5thly,  If  there  was  no  truth  in  what  the  lady 
said,  why  did  not  Foster  at  once  reply  by  a simple  denial,  in 
plain  English? 

But  more  remains  to  be  said.  I anticipate  events  in  order 
to  focus  light  upon  this  outrageous  invention.  The  foregoing 
scene  was  enacted  in  January.  Gen.  Loring  was  then  in  fail- 
ing health.  His  manner  was  kinder  and  he  seemed  to  appre- 
ciate my  goodwill  for  the  Museum.  I knew,  later,  a reason 
for  this.  I determined  to  speak  to  him  upon  this  miserable 
“Lee  business,”  and  during  his  last  two  or  three  weeks  at  the 
Museum,  in  speaking  to  him  about  an  “object  ” I was  inter- 
ested in  from  Abydos,  I remarked:  “There  is  a special  reason 
why  I wish  you  should  read  this  paper,  for  it  will  enlighten 
you  upon  a matter  you  should  know  the  truth  about.  You 
know  why  I ask  you  to  read  it.”  He  read  my  typewritten 


♦So  indignant  was  she  that  she  came  from  Foster  to  me  at  once. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


119 


copy  of  the  Lee  resolutions  through  carefully.  Then  he  re- 
marked : “I  am  very  glad  to  have  seen  this  and  to  know  the 
facts,  for  I was  told  a very  different  story  by  Mr.  Foster  and 

Mrs.  B , that  is,  by  a certain  person.”  He  began  her 

name,  but  did  not  finish  it.  He  added : “ I wish  I had  known 
this  long  ago,  for  it  would  have  made  a difference.”  Then, 
as  he  handed  the  paper  back,  he  added : “ That ’s  very  nice  ; 
I am  glad  to  have  seen  It.” 

I did  not  know  till  May,  when  the  lady  referred  to  returned 
from  the  South,  that  in  January  she  showed  to  Loring  the 
resolutions  of  the  parish*  I know  I had  been  struck  by  the 
pleasant  change  in  his  manner.  This  lady  remarked  to  me 
that  in  all  her  experience  she  had  never  met  with  anything 
so  outrageous  as  the  efforts  of  the  Sec’y,  aided  apparently  by 
Foster,  to  injure  and  “get  out  of  the  way  ” a person  in  official 
position.  To  her  credit,  she  w'rote  to  President  Evans  the 
results  of  her  investigations,  and  observing  the  name  of  Mr. 
F.  W.  Percival  upon  the  Comm,  she  addressed  an  earnest 
note  to  that  gentleman,  at  whose  house  in  London  she  had 
visited.  The  Century  magazine  had  an  article  from  her  a 
little  before,  and  in  writing  to  Evans  I mentioned  that  fact. 
Subsequently,  she  said  that  Evans  replied  courteously  that 
her  letter  should  have  every  consideration,”  etc.,  etc. 

A diplomatic  visit.  On  Jan’y  9 I received  from  Mrs.  B. 
a request  to  meet  Major  Cassatt,  “representing  the  Com- 
mittee,” at  the  Office  on  the  following  day.  He,  a captain  in 
the  U.  S.  Army,  temporarily  residing  in  London,  had  been 
put  upon  the  Comm,  (to  represent  Philadelphia)  through  the 
influence  of  the  energetic  Sec’y  of  the  Philadelphia  Branch, 

* She  informed  me  that  Loring  expressed  his  great  regret  that  he  had  been  so 
misinformed  regarding  myself.  Nearly  a year  later,  I wrote  to  ask  her  what 
Loring  said.  Under  date  of  April  23  ult.,  she  wrote : “ If  my  memory  serves  me,  I 
can  quote  Gen.  Loring’s  words  when  I showed  him  the  Lee  resolutions.  I know 
I repeated  them  to  you  and  your  wife  at  the  time  verbatim.  He  said  in  sub- 
stance : ‘ I thank  you  for  showing  them  to  me.  I am  sorry  I have  been  so  mis- 
informed. In  my  talk  with  you  about  Dr.  Winslow,  I told  you  to  make  inquiries 
why  he  left  the  place  where  he  was  settled.’  This  is  about  what  he  said.  I know 
I told  you  and  Mrs.  Winslow  exactly  word  for  word  what  he  did  say.”  In  May, 
1902,  a particular  friend  of  Foster’s  inquired  of  a clergyman,  who  knew  of  me  at 
Lee,  respecting  Foster’s  assertion.  Unquestionably  Foster  had  spoken  about 
me  and  Lee  to  his  friend. 


120 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


his  personal  friend.  It  was  a recent  appointment.  About 
to  pass  Christmas  at  home,  he  was  asked  by  the  Comm,  to 
report  upon  the  affairs  of  the  Boston  Office.  On  Dec.  27,  I 
had  a line  from  Evans  remarking:  “Until  we  have  heard  from 
Mr.  Foster  and  Maj.  Cassatt  has  returned,  I do  not  see  that 
much  can  be  arranged.”  On  Dec.  21,  a line  from  Mr.  Grueber 
thus  advised  me,  as  an  old  associate : “ In  discussing  matters 
with  Major  Cassatt,  do  not  enter  at  all  into  any  particulars 
about  Mrs.  B.’s  past  history;  but  state  how  impossible  it  is 
for  you  to  control  the  Office  work  if  you  are  not  told  what  is 
taking  place.  I should  lay  special  stress  on  her  attempts  to 
override  your  authority,  in  not  acquainting  you  with  official 
matters  such  as  the  Pittsburg  business,  and  in  leaving  for 
England  without  giving  you  at  least  timely  warning  so  that 
you  might  direct  affairs  during  her  absence.*  Keep  steadily, 
therefore,  to  matters  which  only  concern  the  Office  of  the 
Fund.  . . . You  can  press  your  own  status,  viz.,  that  since 
the  foundation  of  the  Fund  in  the  U.  S.  you  have  been  its 
head  there,  and  have  so  successfully  gathered  in  funds  for  so 
many  years.  Never  mind  if  you  have  a few  enemies.  What 
successful  man  wTas  ever  without  them?  ” 

Although  Grueber  knew  nothing  of  recent  developments, 
I determined  if  possible  to  follow  his  advice. 

On  entering  the  office  I asked  Mrs.  B.  for  Major  Cassatt’s 
address.  She  replied  that  he  had  instructed  her  not  to  give 
it  to  me  — he  had  reached  Boston  on  the  previous  morning. 
When,  however,  he  arrived  at  the  Office,  he  gave  me  his  ad- 
dress on  my  asking  for  it.  I do  not  know  whether  he  had 


* Her  note  to  me  announcing  her  departure,  written  upon  the  steamer,  added : 
“ The  mail  will  be  put  in  the  safe  and  kept  until  my  return;  the  books  I take 
with  me,”  etc.  Mrs.  B.  once  mentioned  that  her  landlady  had  a safe  in  the  house 
which  she  could  “ put  things  into.”  Thus  it  appears  that  not  only  had  I no 
access  to  a closed  office  during  Mrs.  B.’s  absence,  but  all  the  correspondence  was 
inaccessible  to  me  in  “ general  control  over  the  work  of  the  Office.”  Mrs.  B was 
bound  that  all  letters  officially  for  me  should  pass  through  her  hands,  and  if  she 
were  absent,  into  a safe  beyond  my  reach.  So  she  got  Cotton  to  get  the  motion 
passed  respecting  my  address  on  letter  paper,  and  had  got  Foster  to  advocate  it 
also.  Now  I had  asked  Foster,  who  had  ample  safe  room,  if  he  would  not  keep 
the  valuable  books  during  her  absence  on  vacation.  He  replied,  on  July  5,  that 
he  could  “ take  any  books  for  safe  keeping,  in  case  she  wishes.”  Always,  if 
“ she  wishes,”  or  “ so  decides,”  with  him  1 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


121 


previously  “interviewed”  Mrs.  B.  He  asked  me  if  I had 
any  points  to  present.  I replied  that  I had  supposed  this  to 
be  a preliminary  meeting,  and  had  no  papers  with  me.  I 
alluded  to  a few  things,  and  took  up  the  “ Pittsburg  Branch,” 
when  he  remarked  that  Mrs.  B.  had  been  appointed  by  the 
London  Comm,  upon  that  Comm.  — had  she  not?  Certainly, 
I replied,  she  was  appointed;  but  I saw  it  was  useless  to  dis- 
cuss that  point  then  and  there,  for  he  appeared  to  be  under 
some  prejudice  in  Mrs.  B.’s  interest,  through  ignorance  of  the 
facts.  I think  he  had  attended  but  two  or  three  Committee 
meetings.  However,  I asked  for  the  letter  from  Pittsburg 
relating  to  Mrs.  B.’s  “appointment,”  and,  as  I knew,  it  was 
a simple  request  to  have  Mrs.  B.  formally  act  in  selecting  the 
antiquities,  in  July,  for  Pittsburg.  Foster  enlarged  upon 
the  importance  of  having  only  the  address  of  the  Office  (Mrs. 
B.’s  rooms)  upon  our  letters.  Mrs.  B.  referred  to  Loring’s 
letter  to  a Western  subscriber,  which  turned  him  against  me 
upon  the  statement  of  Loring,  based  upon  the  “ mis-informa- 
tion”  already  stated.  Little  was  accomplished  by  the  inter- 
view, except  that  Cassatt  suggested  that  too  many  letters 
from  the  other  side  to  the  three  officials  gave  opportunity  for 
conflicting  opinions,  and  he  should  suggest  this  be  amended. 

I asked  Cassatt  to  call  upon  me.  He  did  so  at  noon  the 
following  day,  but  was  in  haste  to  go  to  a luncheon.  I im- 
proved the  scant  time  by  taking  him  to  Mrs.  B.’s  pastor  near 
by,  with  whom  he  conversed  fifteen  minutes  alone.  We  had 
but  a brief  conversation  afterwards.  He  said  he  would  try 
to  call  next  day  in  the  afternoon.  When  he  called  he  asked 
if  I had  any  fault  to  find  with  Mrs.  B.  in  “business  matters,” 
that  is,  outside  of  character,  etc.  I showed  to  him  a few  im- 
portant letters,  but  plainly  said,  “ I am  not  at  all  on  the  defen- 
sive.” I offered  to  answer  any  questions,  and,  as  in  all  things 
during  his  visit,  treated  him  with  perfect  courtesy  and  abso- 
lute candor.  I had  intended  to  follow  Grueber’s  advice  to  the 
letter,  but  Cassatt  alluded  to  remarks  by  Mrs.  B.  attacking 
my  character,  and  I referred  briefly  to  her  efforts  to  harm  me. 

To  speak  freely;  Cassatt  impressed  me  as  a “society  man,” 
a man  of  the  world,  to  whom  the  whole  business  was  a bore. 


122 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


He  regarded  the  Boston  Office  purely  as  a business  affair. 
On  Monday  morning  I called  on  him,  and  advised  his  going 
to  see  Hon.  F.  D.  Allen,  who  knew  much  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  B., 
of  the  troubles,  and  could  advise  him.  He  did  so.  He  was 
in  Boston  five  days,  but  he  did  not  get  us  together  again,  nor 
did  he  form  an  advisory  Comm,  of  subscribers.  I was  prepared 
to  devote  my  time  to  him;  to  aid  him;  to  suggest  proper 
persons  for  an  advisory  Comm.,  etc.,  etc.  After  his  depar- 
ture, a gentleman  informed  me  that  Cassatt  told  him  that  he 
had  seen  many  people  about  Fund  matters  — Gen.  Loring 
was  one  of  them.  I got  this  distinct  impression  of  his  visit 
— only  an  impression  — that  Mrs.  B.’s  pastor’s  remarks  had 
greatly  affected  his  views,  and  that  Mr.  Allen’s  statements 
and  opinions,  with  papers  I showed  to  him,  caused  him  to 
decide  that  the  Boston  Office  had  better  be  wiped  out,  and  a 
new  deal  be  made  here.  Another  type  of  man,  or  one  long 
on  the  Comm.,  like  Sayce  or  Grueber,  would  have  decided 
that  changes  in  the  Boston  Office  were  needed.  Let  me  be 
just.  I wrote  to  him  subsequently  — he  did  not  reply  — 
that  I thought  the  affairs  of  the  Office  might  properly  be 
placed  in  the  hands  of  a Comm.  (This  I intimated  also  later 
to  the  Comm.)  During  Cassatt’s  visit  Foster  was  a “pretty 
mad  man,”  for  then  my  lawyer  was  prodding  him  for  an  hon- 
est and  direct  reply.  I am  sure  Cassatt’s  opinions  under- 
went a change,  and  that  he  told  Cotton  and  others  that  Mrs. 
B.  must  go,  and  that  a reorganization  of  the  Boston  Office 
(consisting  of  Hon.  Sec’y,  Hon.  Treas.,  Sec’y)  had  better  be 
made. 

At  any  rate,  “after  a careful  consideration  of  the  present 
condition  of  things,  and  after  hearing  Major  Cassatt’s  report, 
the  Committee  was  of  opinion  that  no  other  course  was  open 
but  to  try  and  effect  a complete  reorganization,  and  to  that 
end  to  propose  a Comm,  of  management.”  So  wrote  Grue- 
ber. But  the  Comm,  also  voted  that  my  office  of  Vice  Presi- 
dent (apart  from  the  “Boston  Office”)  should  be  intact. 
(See  Resolutions  passed.) 

But  some  “other  course  ” was  open:  the  Committee  should 
have  requested  me  as  V.  P.  and  the  local  Secretaries  and 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


123 


subscribers  in  Boston  to  reorganize  the  Office.  This  would 
have  conformed  to  the  repeatedly  stated  intentions  of  the 
Comm,  to  follow  the  wishes  of  American  subscribers. 

Allow  me  to  state  why  “no  other  course  was  open.”  I 
think  it  a compromise.  Cotton  and  some  others  were  most 
friendly  to  Mrs.  B.,  and,  to  have  unanimity,  a “clean  sweep  ” 
was  proposed  and  prevailed.  This,  too,  is  my  impression. 
But  both  impressions  rest  on  solid  reasons.  So  much  for 
diplomacy. 

Why  my  Address  should  Appear.  As  a few  flashes  in 
the  “storm  ” I will  show  practically  why  my  address  should 
be  placed  after  my  name  on  note  paper,  so  that  subscribers 
could  write  to  me  direct. 

D.  H.  Ayers,  Esq.,  of  Troy,  wrote  to  me  in  December  to 
ask  if  I would  give  him  some  letters,  for  he  was  about  visiting 
Egypt.  Mrs.  B.  wrote  below  his  letter,  “Rec’d  this  a.m. 
with  book  receipt.”  That  is,  in  sending  her  the  book  receipt 
he  had  enclosed  a letter  for  me.  I thought:  “Not  so.  He 
has  written  to  me,  and  endorsed  in  his  letter  the  receipt.”  I 
replied  that  I would  furnish  him  with  the  letters,  and  I asked 
if  he  had  directed  the  envelope  to  me  f He  responded  “ . . . 
Answering  your  inquiry  as  to  my  former  letter,  I will  say  that 
it  was  addressed  to  you  on  the  envelope  the  same  as  on  the 
letter,  viz.,  Rev.  William  C.  Winslow,  LL.D.,  Vice  Pres’t 
Egypt  Exploration  Fund,”  etc. 

N.  T.  Bacon,  Esq.,  Peacedale,  R.  I.,  wrote  with  a view  to 
securing  some  “object  ” for  his  collection.  Mrs.  B.  repeated 
her  formula.  In  replying  fully  to  Mr.  Bacon  I asked  to  whom 
he  addressed  his  letter.  His  reply  states:  “My  letter  was 
addressed  to  yourself  personally,  but  very  likely  to  the  Office 

on St.”  I wrote  to  Mrs.  B.  respecting  letters  addressed 

to  me  — my  mail  — and  her  reply  came : “ All  mail  addressed 
to  you  received  at  this  Office  is  always  promptly  remailed  to 
your  personal  address.”  Here  were  two  letters  addressed  to 
me,  just  before  she  thus  replied,  which  she  had  forwarded  in 
the  manner  described. 

Suppose  my  card  to  subscribers  respecting  Ushabtis  (See 
“Distribution  of  Ushabtis  ”)  had  only  the  Office  address  upon 


124 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


it,  what  then?  How  could  I have  gathered  the  data  — at 
least  in  full  — that  I did  upon  her  distribution  of  the  figur- 
ines? The  motion  that  passed  the  Comm,  that  in  their 
opinion  only  the  Office  address  should  be  used  in  our  corre- 
spondence was  a mistake.  The  one  in  “general  control” 
over  the  Office  was  better  able  to  judge  than  a Committee 
3,000  miles  away. 

The  following  note  from  Mrs.  Caroline  H.  Dali,  LL.D.,  is 
suggestive : 

Washington,  Feb.  15,  1902. 

My  dear  Dr.  Winslow:  An  old  acquaintance  of  mine  called  yester- 
day to  tell  me  of  the  trouble  with  your  under-Secretary.  You  will 
remember  that,  a year  ago,  I cautioned  you  against  her,  and  sent  you 
a letter  which  I considered  an  assumption  of  authority  not  properly 
hers.  She  opened  a letter  addressed  to  you  — and  forged  a reply.  I 
cannot  help  thinking  that  she  is  a great  injury  to  the  cause.  I told 
you  at  that  time  that  I intended  to  renew  my  subscription.  I have 
never  done  it,  because  I would  not  pay  money  to  her. 

I think  you  should  go  to  London  and  take  with  you  the  letters  you 
have  received.  I am  not  known  so  far  as  I am  aware  to  the  London 
Comm.,  but  I am  known  to  Prof.  Tylor  of  Oxford,  and  was  well  known 
to  the  late  James  Martineau.  In  this  country  I can  have  the  endorse- 
ment of  Senator  Hoar  and  Secretary  Long,  and  I am  a V.  P.  of  the 
American  Social  Science  Association,  which,  with  the  help  of  Gov. 
Andrew,  ex-Gov.  Washburn  and  Dr.  Eliot,  I had  the  honor  of  found- 
ing. . . . You  have  shared  the  common  experience,  in  receiving  great 
ingratitude  from  those  you  have  served  with  sincere  devotion. 

Among  Dr.  Dali’s  books  is  “Egypt’s  Place  in  History.” 
Her  expression  “forged  a reply”  may  seem  strong,  but  I 
wrote  no  such  letter  as  she  described  receiving,  when  she  saw 
me  in  Boston.  I had  repeatedly  told  Mrs.  B.  that  if  she  ever 
pub  my  name  to  a letter  (answered  for  me),  she  must  desig- 
nate it  in  the  way  customary  in  signing  for  others.  There 
lies  before  me  now  a note  signed  by  me  as  V.  P.,  in  her  hand- 
writing throughout,  but  without  any  indication  that  I did 
not  myself  write  and  sign  it.  I suppose  that  Mrs.  B.,  in  her 
haste  or  carelessness,  omitted  the  proper  designation,  etc., 
when  she  replied  to  Mrs.  Dali.  But  for  a long  time  Mrs.  B. 
had  not  had  my  permission  to  append  my  signature  to  official 
matter. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


125 


G.  T.  McComb,  Esq.,  of  Lockport,  N.  Y.,  acknowledged 
last  winter  the  receipt  of  a circular  from  me,  in  a way  that 
indicated  some  misunderstanding.  I enquired  the  cause, 
and  he  frankly  mentioned  receiving  from  me  a circular,  etc., 
singularly  addressed,  and  also  that  I had  not  replied  to  his 
subsequent  notes  (addressed  to  the  Office).  I responded  that 
no  such  communication  ever  came  from  me,  and  that  I always 
replied  to  our  subscribers.  He  answered  most  courteously 
and  kindly: 

In  regard  to  the  circular  that  I was  put  out  about,  I remember  the 
writing  well,  and  having  your  letter  before  me,  can  say  positively,  it 
was  not  your  writing,  or  anything  like  it.  It  is  my  opinion  the  late 
Sec’y  wrote  it,  as  it  was  the  same  handwriting  as  other  circulars  I have 
rec’d  from  the  office.  Of  course,  it  did  not  amount  to  much,  but  you 
can  see  it  was  in  poor  taste,  and  offensive.  For  one  I should  like  to 
see  you  back  in  your  old  position,  an  honor  you  deserve  for  life.  You 
can  see,  as  in  my  case,  that  subscribers  know  very  little  about  the 
real  facts,  and  I would  be  glad  to  see  them  placed  before  the  public 
in  some  way  that  would  be  effective. 


riY  REPORT  TO  LONDON. 

The  London  Committee  hold  a meeting  on  the  first  Tues- 
day of  each  month.  On  Jan.  22,  1902,  I addressed  them  a 
letter,  saying  that  I would  defer  my  official  report  till  the 
March  meeting,  as  Major  Cassatt  would  not  return  to  London 
till  then.  But  I wrote  decisively  respecting  Foster’s  attitude, 
saying  that  I expected  a satisfactory  explanation  from  him, 
so  that  I could  shape  my  report  accordingly.  I emphasized 
his  entire  ignorance  of  the  business  of  the  Office  (except 
through  Mrs.  B.)  and  his  acceptance  of  office  as  “ curator  of 
the  funds.”  My  official  report  of  Feb.  18  was  commended 
by  Hon.  F.  D.  Allen  as  clear,  exact,  conclusive.  Its  enclos- 
ures included  documents  and  letters  confirmatory  of  state- 
ments made;  and  I gave  specifications  on  important  points. 
An  affidavit  was  enclosed.  I quoted  from  a letter  written 
to  me  by  a former  pastor  of  Mrs.  B.,  and  I enclosed  the  note 
to  me  from  her  present  pastor,  and  referred  to  another  pastor 
— all  simply  to  prove  that,  if  necessary  to  attain  her  am- 


126 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


bitious  ends,  she  would  injure  the  character  of  another  by 
innuendo  or  secret  slander.  One  associated  with  her  formerly 
did  not  hesitate  to  write  me  that  “everything  has  got  to  fall 
before  her  in'order  to  attain  her  ambition.  ...  I have  seen 
such  women  before,  and  I am  afraid  of  them.” 

I make  just  one  point  only  out  of  the  two  letters  quoted 
below,  viz.,  the  liability  to  being  slandered  in  some  way  by 
Mr.  or  Mrs.  B.,  if  one  is  associated  officially  with  her  and  in 
the  way  of  her  ambition. 

The  first  letter  is  from  a former  associate  pastor  of  Tremont 
Temple,  to  whom  I wrote  for  information  in  1898: 

My  dear  Sir  and  Brother  in  Christ  : ...  Of  course  I am  unaware 
of  the  extent  of  your  conversation  with  Dr.  Lorimer,  but  some  things 
to  which  you  refer  in  your  letter  would  seem  to  indicate  that  it  would 
be  wise  for  a married  man  to  take  his  wife  with  him  when  he  had  busi- 
ness with  the  party  mentioned  and  to  visit  her  only  when  he  had  busi- 
ness and  during  business  hours.  When  I say  that  this  is  my  opinion 
I do  so  as  a result  of  an  extended  acquaintance  which  was  terminated 
when  the  good  name  and  honor  of  a very  dear  friend  was  put  in  jeop- 
ardy by  the  indiscreet  remarks  made  by  a member  of  the  family  you 
have  written  to  me  about.  You  will  understand  fully  what  I mean 
when  you  receive  the  answers  to  the  questions,  Why  did  these  parties 
leave  the  Tremont  Temple?  and,  What  was  the  beginning  of  their 
trouble  there?  Perhaps  Dr.  Lorimer  could  throw  a little  light  on  these 
questions. 

You  will  understand  that  I left  Boston  in  March,  1894.  I revisited 
the  “Hub  ” in  April  and  May,  ’95.  During  this  visit  I did  not  see  the 
parties  at  all.  I again  visited  the  “ Hub  ” in  April,  May  and  June  of 
’97,  during  which  time  I saw  a great  deal  of  the  parties.  I never  saw 
either  Mr.  or  Mrs.  B.  alone  nor  did  I visit  them  except  in  the  company 
of  my  wife.  My  own  conduct  says  a good  deal  more  about  rny  opin- 
ion than  I care  to  express  in  writing.  It  was  Egypt  that  formed  the 
ground  of  a renewal  of  our  friendship,  the  advance  being  made  by 
Mr.  B.  who  seemed  very  anxious  that  what  influence  I had  should  be 
used  to  smooth  matters  at  the  Temple.  As  a matter  of  fact,  I thought 
it  wise  to  refrain  from  any  attempt  at  making  their  return  to  the 

Temple  work  possible Having  some  means  of  her  own  and 

getting  a taste  of  being  received  by  nice  people,  perhaps  she  has  used 
methods  and  means  to  accomplish  her  advance  that  people  who  have 
received  a different  training  would  look  upon  as  reprehensible. 

You  are  a man  of  experience  and  I need  only  write  one  word  to 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


127 


you,  allowing  you  to  follow  what  it  means  to  its  logical  conclusion. 
Opium,  headaches,  nervousness,  loss  of  sleep,  etc.,  — this  may  ex- 
plain certain  physical  and  mental  phenomena  that  you  must  have 
observed  in  the  lady  under  discussion.  Without  doubt  “Biblia,” 
the  Secretaryship,  etc.,  should  be  placed  in  other  hands  for  the  honor 
of  the  Society  as  well  as  the  social  standing  of  the  whole  institution. 
I had  hoped  that  with  plenty  of  work  and  associations  that  were  con- 
genial something  might  be  made  out  of  Mrs.  B.  This  hope  has  not 
been  realized.  . . . 

Your  Brother  in  Christ, 

Pastor. 


Before  mailing  my  official  report  I called  upon  the  Rev. 

, with  whose  church  Mrs.  B.  was  connected,  at  least 

nominally,  and  I asked  if  I was  putting  the  case  too  strongly 
with  reference  to  himself.  I read  to  him  from  my  report: 
“Neither  of  these  gentlemen  (the  two  pastors)  would  call 
alone  upon  her,  nor  would  her  present  pastor.  I cannot,  I 
will  not  call  upon  her  alone,  or  be  alone  with  her  at  the  office. 
. . . Here  are  four  clergymen  who  have  sustained,  or  sustain, 
official  relations  towards  the  persons  now  discussed,  who 
would  not  call  alone  upon  her,  as  a precaution.  This  fact 
per  se  would  be  convincing  to  our  subscribers  if  made  known 
to  them,  and  it  is  of  the  highest  significance  to  those  who  control 
and  are  responsible  for  the  affairs  of  the  Fund.” 

The  Rev.  Mr. replied  that  I represented  him  correctly. 

I asked  for  a note  from  him,  and  he  wrote  this  upon  the  offi- 
cial letter  paper  of  his  church : 

Feb.  16,  1902. 

To  Rev.  W.  C.  Winslow,  D.D.: 

My  dear  Sir, — In  response  to  your  question  concerning  Mrs. , 

permit  me  to  say  that  she  is  now  a member  of  the Church,  and 

that  for  reasons  known  to  myself  I do  not  deem  it  wise  to  call  upon 
her  except  in  the  company  of  my  wife  or  one  of  my  deacons. 

Very  truly  yours, 


Additional  Testimony.  It  will  be  recalled  that  in  the 
conference  on  Oct.  30  (see  “A  Singular  Consultation”),  Mr.  B. 
asserted  that  Mr.  Louis  Dyer  could  be  relied  on  to  support 
Mrs.  B.  “every  time.”  I mentioned  this  incident  to  a Cam- 


128 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


bridge  lady  of  the  highest  standing  every  way.  She  had  known 
something  of  Mrs.  B.  Immediately  she  replied  that  she  knew 
Mr.  Dyer  and  had  corresponded  with  him.  She  said  she 
would  write  to  him.  But  she  added  very  properly,  that  it 
would  be  best  for  her  to  obtain  independently  of  me  some 
information.  Some  two  weeks  later,  under  date  of  Feb.  6, 
she  wrote  to  me  that  she  had  addressed  “ a long  letter  to  Mr. 
Dyer.  ...  I asked  Mr.  Dyer  to  let  other  members  of  the 
Committee  know  the  contents  of  the  letter.”  This  gentle- 
man had  not  been  very  long  upon  the  Committee;  I had  met 
him  but  once  or  twice  only  in  my  life;  he  had  long  known  of 
my  labors  for  the  Fund.  He  could  place  absolute  reliance 
upon  his  Cambridge  correspondent.  He  promptly  acknowl- 
edged the  letter,  intimating  that  the  Comm,  were  (or  would 
be)  well  informed  of  the  matter.  Of  course,  I did  not  myself 
see  his  reply. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  a well-known  Boston  lady  had  pre- 
viously written  to  President  Evans  and  to  her  friend  on  the 
Committee,  Mr.  Percival.  Thus  two  decisive  and  indepen- 
dent statements  were  addressed,  one  to  Dyer  and  one  to  Per- 
cival, each  from  a friend.  Each  said  that  Mrs.  B.  should  not 
remain  as  Sec’y.  I may  add  that  the  letter  to  Mr.  Dyer  was 
given  James  B.  Ames,  LL.D.,  to  read,  and  he  remarked  that 
it  was  a clear  statement  and  would  set  the  Committee  to 
thinking,  etc.  A few  of  my  readers  may  not  know  that  he  is 
head  of  the  Law  School  of  Harvard  University.  I add  that 
I enclosed  an  autographic  note  from  Dean  Hoffman  to  the 
Comm,  with  my  report. 

I close  this  section  with  an  incident  typical  of  Foster’s 
ex  parte  conduct  — even  lawlessness  — which  reveals  how 
entirely  he  was  the  puppet  of  Mrs.  B. 

It  was  impossible  for  me  to  distribute  the  Ushabtis  without 
having  an  accurate  list  of  at  least  some  of  the  subscribers’ 
addresses.  I wrote  officially  to  Mrs.  B.  giving  the  reason 
why  I wished  the  addresses.  She  replied  that  she  had  sub- 
mitted my  request  to  Foster,  and  added:  “I  am  again  in- 
structed by  Mr.  Foster  to  deliver  the  list  to  no  one,  or  permit 
a copy  to  be  made  in  part  or  whole  of  the  said  list,  awaiting 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


129 


the  final  decision  of  the  Committee  in  London  concerning 
the  officers  of  the  Fund  in  the  United  States.  I am  also  re- 
quested by  Mr.  Foster  to  notify  you  that  he  will  pay  no  bills 
contracted  by  you  in  any  distribution  of  ushabtis  until  noti- 
fied by  the  Committee  in  London  so  to  do,  subscribers  having 
already  been  supplied  with  the  ushabtis,”  etc.,  etc. 

The  Committee  had  taken  no  action  at  all  “ concerning  the 
officers  of  the  Fund  in  the  United  States,”  nor  had  Major 
Cassatt  reached  London.  I was  in  “general  control”  over 
the  Office  and  its  work.  Foster  had  no  control  over  the 
Office,  or  its  work  performed  by  either  the  Sec’y  or  myself. 
The  Comm,  had  voted  (as  Mrs.  B.  knew)  to  send  a case  of 
ushabtis  to  me  for  distribution  among  subscribers.  Without 
their  accurate  addresses,  how  could  I dispatch  the  “objects  ”? 
She  stated:  “Subscribers  having  been  already  supplied  with 
the  ushabtis.”  How  well  (?)  they  had  been  supplied  by  her 
appears  under  the  section,  “Distribution  of  Ushabtis.”  I 
could  have  got  from  the  Court  a quo  warranto,  and  obtained 
those  addresses,  but  that  meant  publicity.  I wrote  at  once 
to  London  of  my  predicament.  The  Comm,  voted:  “That 
the  Sec’y  be  directed  to  furnish  the  Hon.  Sec’y  with  an 
amended  list  of  subscribers  in  America,  for  the  purpose  of 
distribution  of  ushabtis,  and  that  the  Hon.  Treasurer  be 
authorized  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  same.”  For  their  dis- 
tribution no  charge  was  made  to  the  Fund.  The  official 
letter  to  me  from  Mrs.  B.  was  “approved  ” over  his  signature. 
She  typewrote  it  all,  took  it  to  him,  and  he  endorsed  it  at 
her  dictation. 

Here  was  a clear  case  of  Mrs.  B.’s  effort  to  rule  the  office, 
“to  crush  ” me,  as  Grueber  had  remarked.  Here  was  clear 
evidence  of  what  I had  to  endure  from  Foster,  and  of  his 
utter  disregard  for  the  Resolutions  of  our  Appointment, 
which  he  had  approved  by  signing.  He  simply  defied  the 
law  — that  is  all. 

Legal  and  other  Evidence.  A fitting  sequel  to  what 
has  been  said  in  these  pages  will  now  follow.  In  the  spring 
I determined  to  investigate  matters  for  myself.  It  has  been 
impossible  to  print  statements  or  opinions  expressed  to  me 


130 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


by  various  persons  acquainted,  or  claiming  to  be  acquainted, 
with  the  past  record  of  one  or  two  persons  who  figure  in  this 
narrative.  Nor  do  I deem  it  necessary  or  best  to  excavate 
such  fields  and  classify  the  finds.  Was  Mrs.  B.  as  Secretary 
using  her  legal  name?  I decided  to  settle  this  one  doubt.  I 
saw  a number  of  persons  and  inspected  some  records.  These 

results  were  manifest:  1.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  B.  were  living  at 

(the  Fund  Office  afterwards)  in  1886-7  as  husband  and  wife, 
she,  however,  being  the  legal  wife  of  a man  whose  name  also 
began  with  B.  2.  In  1887,  in  the  city  registry  was  entered 
the  death  and  burial  of  their  child  under  their  name  as  “ hus- 
band and  wife.”  3.  In  1887-8  they  “professed  conversion,” 
entered  their  names  as  husband  and  wife  on  the  records  of 
Tremont  Temple,  added  their  spiritual  experiences,  were 
immersed  and  joined.  It  is  said  that  she  was  very  fervent 
in  prayer,  and  interested  in  Sunday-school  work.  Reference 
here  should  be  made  to  the  letter  from  the  associate  or  assist- 
ant pastor  under  “My  Report  to  London.”  4.  Mr.  B.,  the 
husband,  got  a divorce  in  1895.  She  refused  to  appear. 
The  Massachusetts  law  allows  a party  from  whom  a divorce 
is  obtained  to  marry  in  two  years.  5.  In  1896  Mrs.  B.  be- 
came Sec’y  to  the  Fund;  representing  herself  to  be  the  legal 
wife  of  B.,  and  signing  herself,  or  placing  her  name,  on  our 
records  as  if  she  were  the  wife  of  B.  The  name  she  used, 
and  which  appeared  in  our  circulars,  was  throughout  unlike 
her  legal  name.  6.  The  city  registry  of  July  1,  1902,  records 
the  marriage  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  B.  How  did  this  marriage 
come  about?  In  May  her  pastor  requested  me  to  give  him 
a copy  of  the  foregoing  data.  They  were  read  at  a deacons’ 
meeting.  A committee  later  on  reported  that  the  data 
were  found  to  be  correct.  “Mr.  and  Mrs.  B.”  were  cited  to 
attend  a meeting  for  “ explanation.”  They  finally  did  so. 
They  agreed  to  be  married,  and  the  pastor  united  them  in 
marriage.  Her  legal  surname  is  now  that  used  on  the  Fund 
documents.  Her  first  and  middle  names  are  still  not  those 
on  the  documents. 

But  other  testimony  had  been  taken.  Dr.  Kellner  of 
Cambridge  is  an  intimate  friend  of  Foster.  We  had  some 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


131 


acquaintance;  I called  upon  him;  he  was  much  interested  to 
learn  some  of  the  facts  relating  to  Mrs.  B.,  for  he  had  heard 
of  her  through  Foster.  I need  not  say  that  he  was  aston- 
ished at  the  evidence  showed  to  him.  He  declared  his  friend 
was  deceived,  etc.  He  asked  for  a memorandum  of  the  first 
five  points  specified  above  — to  show  to  Foster,  he  said. 
Later,  he  remarked  to  me  that  Foster  would  not  credit  the 
data,  but  had  yielded  to  his  request  to  ascertain  the  truth 
thereon.  Later,  Kellner  stated  to  me  that  Foster  had  re- 
quested a lawyer  to  examine  the  records,  and  he  had  reported 
to  Foster  that  my  data  were  accurate. 

If  a true  gentleman  and  a true  Christian,  Foster  should 
immediately  have  made  an  amende  of  some  kind  to  me;  he 
should  have  written  to  one  or  more  on  the  London  Comm, 
that  he  had  labored  under  mistake.  His  advocacy  of  a 
“clean  sweep  ” of  both  my  offices  should  have  ceased.  But 
his  pique,  the  smallness  of  his  nature,  overpowered  him.  If 
there  were  other  reasons  for  his  persistency  against  me  and 
for  Mrs.  B.,  I do  not  discuss  them.  The  business  facts  were 
that  he  had  been  deceived  — honestly  so,  let  us  assume  — 
and  honestly  and  honorably  as  a man  he  should  have  been 
just,  and  done  right.  How  easy  for  him  to  have  asked  Kell- 
ner to  arrange  a meeting  for  us  three  to  discuss  the  affair 
together?  Let  me  but  see  honesty  and  sincerity  in  a man, 
and  I can  forgive  and  overlook  much.  Foster’s  advocacy 
of  a “clean  sweep  ” will  again  be  discussed. 

Letters  to  London.  Abundance  of  light  was  given  to 
various  members  of  the  Committee.  To  Mr.  Dyer  I wrote, 
earnestly  requesting  him  to  inform  several  members  of  the 
contents  of  the  letter  he  received  from  his  correspondent  in 
Cambridge.  He  had  heard  that  B.  had  declared  that  “ Louis 
Dyer  could  be  relied  on  ” to  support  Mrs.  B.  Later,  I sent 
to  him  evidence  of  importance  ; later  I begged  him  to 
attend  the  Committee  meeting  and  to  use  his  knowl- 
edge of  matters  and  his  influence  for  justice  and  right.  I 
never  received  from  him  a word  of  acknowledgment.  I sup- 
pose him  to  be  a friend  to  Cotton.  To  Rev.  W.  Macgregor 
I wrote,  begging  his  presence  at  the  meetings,  and  aid  in  try- 


132 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


ing  to  have  our  American  Office  'properly  conducted.  As  he 
was  the  one  minister  on  the  Comm.,  I felt  that  he  would  try 
to  have  all  things  “decently  and  in  order.”  He  replied:  “I 
attend  the  meetings  of  the  Committee  so  seldom  that  I do 
not  intend  to  take  up  a matter  about  which  I know  nothing 
personally.”  To  T.  F.  Hall  I wrote,  informing  him  of  the 
letter  to  Dyer  from  Cambridge,  and  asking  him  to  speak  with 
that  gentleman  about  it.  I urged  him  to  aid  in  putting  things 
right.  He  is  one  of  the  best  informed  men  on  the  Comm, 
regarding  the  American  Branch.  Light  has  been  showered 
upon  him.  He  told  me  in  London  that  he  disliked  “diplo- 
macy,” and  referred  to  the  “diplomacy  ” of  Cotton  and  one 
or  two  others.  He  wrote  to  me  confidential  notes  in  1897-8. 
He  replied  to  me  on  March  7th,  that  he  could  not  fathom 
the  “Boston  office  quarrel,”  and  he  closed  his  note  saying 
“I  must  seek  refuge  in  the  future  in  absolute  silence.”  To 
Mr.  Herbert  Thompson  I wrote  on  April  25,  with  one  or  two 
important  enclosures,  asking  his  presence  at  the  meetings, 
etc.  He  replied  that  he  had  just  got  home.  “In  conse- 
quence of  my  absence  from  England  I was  unable  to  attend 
the  meeting  of  the  Comm,  at  which  the  question  of  the  Boston 
office  was  dealt  with,  and  consequently  I have  not  formed 
any  opinion  on  the  questions  at  issue.”  This  was  May  10  — 
did  he  attend  the  meeting  of  May  27,  when  my  V.  P.  was 
cancelled? 

F.  G.  Hilton  Price,  F.S.A.,  a courteous  gentleman  with 
whom  I have  occasionally  corresponded,  replied  to  me  from 
Menton,  April  15,  that  on  his  return  to  England  he  should 
discuss  matters  with  Mr.  Grueber.  I enclosed  to  him  one 
or  two  important  data.  Now  on  May  6, 1 had  mailed  to  him 
and  to  Percival  important  data.  If  they  attended  the  meet- 
ing of  May  27,  they  were  in  possession  of  evidence  which 
should  have  shaped  their  action  decisively.  But  I give  them 
the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  and  conclude  they  were  absent. 
Dr.  F.  G.  Kenyon  replied  from  Italy  very  courteously.  He 
was  present  at  the  March  meeting,  but  feared  he  should  not 
be  in  England  for  the  meeting  of  April  22.  That  meeting 
reorganized  the  Boston  Office  Was  he  present  on  May  27 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


133 


when  my  V.  P.  was  canceled?  Dr.  Kenyon  closed  his  note 
as  follows : 

“The  question,  What  do  the  subscribers  to  the  American 
Branch  themselves  feel  and  desire  in  the  matter,  is  one  which 
has  constantly  been  brought  forward;  and  J think  the  only  sat- 
isfactory solution  of  the  present  deadlock  * will  be  one  which  so 
reorganizes  the  American  Branch  as  to  enable  purely  Ameri- 
can questions  to  be  settled  by  the  SUBSCRIBERS  to  that  Branch 
instead  of  having  to  be  referred  to  the  London  Committee,  who, 
with  the  best  will  in  the  world,  are  necessarily  groping  some- 
what in  the  dark.” 

The  italics  are  mine.  “What  the  American  subscribers 
feel  and  desire,”  and  the  “settlement  of  purely  American 
questions  by  our  subscribers,”  verbally  meet  the  case  exactly. 
Have  our  local  Secretaries  and  subscribers  been  consulted 
at  all  in  the  reorganization  of  our  affairs?  Was  not  the  re- 
quest to  the  London  Committee  from  our  representative 
corps  of  local  Secretaries  respecting  the  Vice  Presidentship 
and  myself  simply  shelved? 

Diplomacy  was  defined  to  me  in  London  by  Mr.  T.  Farmer 
Hall  as  “saying  one  thing  and  doing  another.”  He  did  not 
like  diplomacy,  and  I agreed  with  him. 

A serious  trouble  anent  the  London  Comm,  is  the  absence 
of  its  members  at  meetings.  This  affords  an  Hon.  Sec’y  and 
two  or  three  members  a chance  to  pass  upon  matters  of  im- 
portance. I trust  the  foregoing  replies  from  members  of 
the  Comm,  will  throw  additional  light  upon  this  non-attend- 
ance of  members,  and  upon  how  “London  ” deals  with  burn- 
ing questions  from  a safe  or  evasive  standpoint. 

THE  ACTION  OF  THE  COMMITTEE. 

As  will  be  recalled,  the  vote  of  April  22,  1902,  provided 
for  the  reorganization  of  the  Boston  Office  consisting  of  Hon. 
Sec’y,  Hon.  Treas.  and  Sec’y.  That  of  May  27  removed  me 
from  my  position  as  Vice  President. 

*1  had  stated  positively  to  the  Comm,  that  I would  not  call  alone  upon  the 
Sec’y  at  the  Office  (altho’  for  years  I had  kept  the  Office  door  open  during  my  calls) 
in  order  to  avoid  slander  of  some  kind.  The  evidence  for  this  step  of  mine 
ought  to  have  been  conclusive,  even  3,000  miles  away. 


134 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


On  receiving  the  former  notification  I called  upon  Mr. 
Edward  Robinson  of  the  Museum,  and  had  a long  conversa- 
tion with  him.  He  did  not  intend  to  accept  the  appointment 
to  organize  a committee  here.  As  he  was  long  the  associate 
and  friend  of  Gen.  Loring,  I gave  him  a few  points  upon  the 
troubles  caused  by  Mrs.  B.  I clearly  explained  to  him  that 
the  Office  consisted  of  the  three  officials,  and  I handed  to 
him  a small  slip  defining  our  respective  powers,  which  had 
been  printed  by  me  to  answer  many  inquiries.  The  Resolu- 
tions of  appointment  were  clearly  quoted  in  it.  A footnote 
quoting  from  Cotton’s  letter  about  my  V.  P.  was  purely 
personal.  It  began,  “I  regard  you,”  etc.  Two  days  later 
at  the  Museum,  Robinson  told  me  positively  that  he  had  ab- 
solutely declined  the  appointment.  He  had  so  cabled.  Near 
the  end  of  May  I was  at  the  Museum  for  another  purpose ; but 
I asked  Robinson  if  he  had  further  word  of  any  kind  from 
London.  He  said,  “I  have  heard  nothing.”  Now  certain 
data  respecting  Mrs.  B.  were  in  my  pocket.  It  occurred  to 
me  to  hand  the  slip  to  Robinson  to  read,  and  I added,  "Those 
data  have  been  found  to  be  accurate,”  etc.,  etc.  He  read  the 
typewritten  page,  handing  it  back  with  the  remark,  "If 
that ’s  so,  I am  glad  I am  out  of  it.”  He  certainly  knew  that 
my  belief  wTas  that  he  had  declined  the  appointment,  and 
that  he  was  glad  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

On  June  9 I was  astonished  by  a notification  from  Cotton 
that  my  office  of  V.  P.  was  canceled.  Grueber,  however, 
wrote  to  me  that  Robinson  did  not  decline  the  appointment, 
but  wrould  consider  it  if  my  “ control  ” (whatever  that  im- 
plied) ceased  — in  other  words  if  my  office  of  V.  P.  was  can- 
celed. Whether  Robinson  used  the  exact  word  “V.  P.”  does 
not  matter.  To  state  that  he  would  accept  if  my  official 
connection  ceased  meant  that  he  would  form  a committee 
were  I no  longer  V.  P.  “ The  Comm,  felt  that  the  only  course 
to  take  was  to  meet  Mr.  Robinson’s  views,  and  to  cancel  your 
official  connection  with  the  Fund.”  Grueber  puts  this  ex- 
actly, although  as  gently  as  possible  for  Robinson’s  sake.  I 
called  upon  Robinson  at  once  and  subsequently.  He  acknowl- 
edged that  he  told  me  that  he  had  declined.  “ But  I changed 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


135 


my  mind.”  This  is  what  he  added  in  about  these  words: 
“The  day  after  you  were  here  Mr.  Warren  called,  and  when 
I told  him  of  the  request  from  London  he  replied  that  for  the 
sake  of  the  Museum  I ought  to  have  accepted,  and  thus  en- 
able us  to  secure  more  objects  for  the  Egyptian  collection. 
Mr.  Foster  came  over  to  see  me;  and  I consulted  with  one  or 
two  others,  and  we  thought  a new  Comm,  ought  to  start  with 
a free  hand  and  a clean  sweep,  and  so  I wrote  the  London 
Comm,  accordingly.  You  know,  Dr.  Winslow,  that  for  a 
few  years  our  portion  of  'objects’  for  the  Museum  has  been 
less  than  formerly.”  Robinson’s  one  controlling  motive 
seemed  to  be  that  he  should  form  the  new  Comm,  for  the 
Museum’s  sake.  He  had  before  candidly  told  me  that  his 
interest  did  not  lie  in  Egyptian  archaeology. 

Soon  after  I addressed  Robinson  two  letters  (from  Barn- 
stable) upon  “the  serious  mistake  made  by  the  London 
Comm,  in  rescinding  their  vote  that  the  appointment  of  a 
Comm,  in  Boston  should  in  no  way  affect  my  Vice  President- 
ship. The  canceling  of  my  position  as  V.  P.  was  prompted 
solely  at  your  request,  through  your  misapprehension  of 
what  the  office  meant.”  I put  the  case  mildly  as  one  of 
“misapprehension.”  This  would  enable  him  to  inform  the 
London  Comm,  of  his  own  “misunderstanding  ” of  my  status 
as  V.  P.,  and,  if  he  did  not  care  to  urge  my  reappointment  as 
V.  P.,  it  would  still  give  the  Comm,  absolute  freedom  to  do 
so.  Once  more  I clearly  explained  that  the  Boston  Office  (to 
be  superseded  by  a Comm.),  consisted  only  of  Hon.  Sec’y, 
Hon.  Treas.,  and  Sec’y.  I distinctly  but  courteously  warned 
Robinson  that  trouble  must  follow  such  “ inexplicable  action 
of  our  Committee.  . . . Subscribers  and  members  have 
rights:  the  Committee  is  their  creation:  a President,  a Vice 
President,  or  the  head  of  one  half  of  the  Soc’y,  cannot  be 
summarily  removed  without  cause  from  office.  In  England, 
surely  in  America,  all  are  amenable  to  public  opinion.” 

Robinson  replied  that  he  had  “ made  no  requests  whatever 
of  the  London  Committee.”  But,  in  spite  of  his  diplomati- 
cally-drawn lines  he  admitted  saying,  in  his  reply  to  London 
that  he  thought  it  “unwise  to  commit  their  new  representa- 


136 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


tives  (the  proposed  Comm.)  in  advance  to  any  one  of  those 
among  whom  the  trouble  had  previously  existed.”  Robin- 
son then  cited  the  personal  opinion  of  Cotton  upon  my  V. 
P.,  and  coolly  passed  over  the  official  appointment  and  au- 
thority given  to  me  by  the  London  Comm,  itself.  As  a par- 
allel case:  Suppose  an  official  of  his  Board  of  Trustees  had 
expressed  an  opinion  to  Robinson  upon  R.’s  authority;  but 
that  later  on,  the  Board  had  passed  resolutions  or  laws  defin- 
ing his  authority.  Would  he  fall  back  upon  an  individual  opin- 
ion superseded  by  legal  definition,  in  exercising  his  authority? 
“The  Hon.  Sec’y,  the  Hon.  Treas.  and  the  Sec’y  shall  together 
constitute  the  Boston  Office,”  were  words  before  his  very 
eyes  when  he  cited  the  personal  opinion  of  Cotton.  I add 
here  that  when  I saw  Robinson  in  the  fall  I asked  to  see  the 
copy  of  his  official  reply  to  London,  but  he  refused  point 
blank.  There  was  Grueber’s  statement  — there  was  Robin- 
son’s letter  to  me,  as  quoted  from  — but  Robinson  would  not 
allow  me  to  see  his  official  letter  in  order  to  put  things  right. 
With  his  personal  letters,  those  of  Foster  and  perhaps  others, 
to  London,  I had  no  business. 

The  obligation  of  his  Museum  to  the  Fund  for  monuments, 
Robinson  added  in  his  letter  to  me,  also  impelled  him  to 
accept  the  appointment.  My  reply  thereon  said:  “You  re- 
mark upon  the  obligations  of  the  Museum  to  the  Fund.  But 
who  founded  the  American  Branch?  Who  raised  the  funds, 
who  made  the  earnest  efforts,  both  needed,  to  secure  the 
best  monuments  in  that  collection?  ” 

The  Part  Taken  by  Foster.  That  Foster  took  an  im- 
portant part  in  securing  my  removal  as  V.  P.,  I have  no 
doubt.  When  I saw  Robinson  in  June  he  said  that  “Foster 
came  over  to  see  me,”  etc.  (already  mentioned).  When,  in 
the  fall,  I referred  to  his  letters  to  London,  he  significantly 
remarked,  “ I guess  there  were  others  also  who  wrote  to  Lon- 
don.” Early  in  May,  after  the  official  action  regarding  the 
Hon.  Sec’y  and  Sec’y  and  reorganization  of  the  Boston 
Office,  but  before  the  news  of  subsequent  action  regarding 
my  V.  P.  had  come,  I met  near  Boston  a Mrs. , a de- 

voted friend  of  Mrs.  B.  So  angry  was  she  over  Mrs.  B.’s 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


137 


retirement  that  she  mentioned  her  name  at  once,  and  began 
an  uncalled-for  defense  of  her.  I made  no  reply  except  to 
remark,  “Probably  you  are  ignorant  of  all  the  facts  in  the 

case.”  Mrs. , warming  in  Mrs.  B.’s  defense,  added  that 

“the  thing’s  not  through  with  yet,”  and  “there  may  be  a 
great  surprise  for  you  soon.”  She  repeated  this.  Soon 
after,  I learned  that  she  had  had  a long  interview  with  Foster 
but  a day  or  two  previous  to  meeting  me.  And  after  the 
“news  ” came  from  London  that  I was  removed  as  V.  P.,  I 
heard  from  another  source  what  she  meant  by  her  “sur- 
prise ” for  me,  and  also  that  the  preceding  winter  or  spring 
she  had  seen  several  members  of  the  London  Comm,  in  Mrs. 
B.’s  interest.  She  acts  as  courier  to  small  parties  of  ladies 
traveling  abroad. 

Dr.  Kellner  writing  me  last  summer  upon  the  reorganiza- 
tion of  the  Boston  Office,  remarked:  “As  regards  Mr.  Foster, 
I have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  is  not  entirely  satisfied 
with  the  present  status  of  things;  it  is  consistent  with  his 
advocacy  of  ‘ a clean  sweep,’  leaving  the  control  of  all  offices 
on  this  side  in  the  hands  of  an  American  Committee.” 

There  is  no  doubt  that  when  Foster  knew  Mrs.  B.  was 
to  cease  to  be  Sec’y,  and  that  the  Boston  Comm.,  when 
formed,  would  not  appoint  her  Sec’y  (which  Robinson  told 
me  at  the  first),  he  vigorously  advocated  “a  clean  sweep,” 
which  simply  meant  Winslow’s  removal  as  V.  P.  Was  not 
he  among  the  “others”  besides  Robinson  who  wrote  to 
London?  Did  he  not  tell  Mrs.  B.’s  friend,  who  interviewed 
him,  that  he  had  written  “a  decisive  letter  ” to  London? 

When  Foster  saw  that  he  had  been  deceived  in  his  opinion 
of  the  Sec’y,  if  he  had  not  the  manhood  to  make  some  amende 
to  me,  he  should  at  the  least  have  “advocated  ” my  continu- 
ance as  V.  P.  Was  he  not  one  who  pressed  “ a clean  sweep  ” 
upon  Robinson?  Why  did  he  allow  Robinson  to  suppose 
(if  he  really  did  so)  that  the  V.  P.  was  concerned  in  the  Bos- 
ton Office  or  its  reorganization?  For  Foster  knew  the  reso- 
lutions of  our  appointments,  and  that  the  V.  P.  was  not  a 
part  of  the  Boston  Office. 

Foster  is  the  lifelong  friend  of  Mr.  Lane.  Mrs.  B.’s  friend 


138 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


referred  to  their  consultation  together  on  matters,  when  she 
spoke  to  a friend  of  mine  upon  the  subject.  I believe  that 
Lane  also  urged  upon  Robinson  “a  clean  sweep.”*  When 
I discussed  the  “Overturn”  with  a leading  Boston  editor, 
and,  to  his  inquiry,  answered  that  Lane  had  been  upon  the 
former  Boston  Comm,  and  was  hostile  to  me,  he  replied  that 
if  Lane  and  Foster  were  opposed  to  me,  “that  settled  it,” 
for  Lane  was  noted  for  his  set  determination.  This  was 
after  the  Robinson  Committee  was  formed. 

Foster  became  Lion.  Treasurer  to  the  new  Committee.  In 
his  letter  to  me,  July  8,  1902,  Robinson  expressly  had  said 
that  the  new  Comm,  (to  be  formed)  should  not  be  committed 
in  advance  “ to  any  one  of  those  (of  the  Boston  Office)  among 
whom  the  trouble  had  previously  existed.”  Yet  Foster, 
“one  of  those  among  whom  the  trouble  existed,”  was  im- 
mediately appointed  Hon.  Treasurer  by  the  new  Committee, 
last  October,  which  shows  how  fully  en  rapport  he  had  been 
with  Robinson  from  the  day  he  “came  over  to  see  ” Robin- 
son, and  a “clean  sweep”  was  devised;  and  the  London 
Committee  voted  “to  meet  Mr.  Robinson’s  views,  and  to 
cancel  your  official  connection  with  the  Fund,”  as  Grueber 
stated.  Foster  did  not  want  to  become  Hon.  Treas.  when 
I asked  him  to  be  in  1897.  Constantly  he  was  desiring  to 
get  rid  of  the  burden.  When  reorganization  was  voted,  in 
the  cheerful  words  of  Evans:  “Mr.  Foster  most  obligingly 
consented  to  remain.”  And  when  the  new  Comm,  was 
started,  “Mr.  Foster  agreed  to  continue  to  act  as  Treas- 
urer.” So,  too,  when  London,  in  1896,  appointed  an  Ameri- 
can Comm,  one  of  the  loudest  “protestants”  was  Foster. 
It  was  an  “outrage”  (see  his  letter).  But  when  one 
person,  a non-subscriber,  was  asked  to  do  the  appointing  in 
1902,  his  legal  and  moral  views  changed  suddenly,  and 
he  “struck  hands  ” with  him,  and  became  an  official  for  the 
new  Committee. 

“ Consistency,  thou  art  a jewel.” 

♦In  1897,  when  the  Boston  Comm,  retired.  Lane  wished  my  “retirement”  as 
V.  P.,  in  addition  to  my  retirement  as  Hon.  Sec'y.  But  Cotton  told  him  the 
V.  P.  was  not  a part  of  the  Boston  Office,  or  Boston  Committee. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


139 


It  is  stated  that  Foster,  who  resigned  his  post  this  spring, 
did  so  because  he  could  not  agree  with  the  new  Hon.  Secre- 
tary, and  because  of  the  great  falling  off  of  subscriptions 
through  dissatisfaction. 


140 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


PART  V. 

THE  BOSTON  COHniTTEE. 

About  November  1,  1902,  a circular  appeared  containing 
the  names  of  seven  gentlemen  constituting  the  Committee 
formed  by  Mr.  Robinson.  It  stated  that  “ the  London  Com- 
mittee of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  determined  some 
months  ago  that  it  was  for  the  interest  of  the  Fund  and  for 
the  advantage  of  the  American  subscribers  that  the  manage- 
ment here  should  be  put  in  the  hands  of  a practically  inde- 
pendent committee  working  in  harmony  with  the  Fund  in 
London.  The  undersigned  gentlemen  have  been  requested 
and  have  agreed  to  act  as  this  committee.” 

The  circular  bore  the  name  “Boston  Committee.”  It  will 
be  recalled  that  President  Evans  closed  his  remarks  by  nam- 
ing the  proposed  Committee  the  “Boston  Committee.”  It 
was  intended  to  be  “a  practically  independent  committee,” 
and  was  so  announced.  Hence  to  a Boston  Committee  was 
to  be  committed  the  “management  ” of  the  American  Branch. 
The  sentence,  “undersigned  gentlemen,”  etc.,  diplomatically 
omits  to  state  how  the  Comm,  was  formed,  but  it  may  be 
inferred  by  many  readers,  that  the  London  Comm,  them- 
selves appointed  this  Comm.  As  already  stated,  three  of 
the  seven  members  were  connected  with  the  Boston  Museum 
of  Fine  Arts,  which  partly  accounts  for  the  remark  that 
through  this  Comm,  “we  shall  be  brought  into  close  touch 
with  the  Society’s  work  in  Egypt,  hnd  secure  an  important 
share  of  its  results.”  I have  already  said  that  Robinson’s 
main  grievance  was  that  I had  not  of  late  secured  enough 
antiquities  for  the  Museum.  His  essential  reason  (given  to 
me)  for  forming  this  Comm,  was  the  Museum’s  interests.  It 
will  be  seen  whether  I neglected  the  Museum  during  the  years 
1883-1902. 

Of  the  seven  members  I remark  seriatim: 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


141 


1.  Prof.  Goodwin  I called  upon  immediately  upon  receiv- 
ing the  circular.  When  I began  to  speak  of  the  troubles 
causing  reorganization,  he  remarked  upon  his  ignorance  of 
them,  adding,  “I  did  not  go  upon  this  Comm,  supposing  there 
was  to  be  any  controversy.”  I think  I quote  him  accurately 
as  also  saying  that  he  would  not  have  gone  upon  the  Comm, 
had  he  known  that  there  would  be  “controversy.”  He  cer- 
tainly knew  before  I left  him  that  I had  been  sorely  tried  in 
the  work  of  the  Office,  and  I learn  of  his  decided  views  ex- 
pressed to  one  or  two  persons  respecting  the  one  who  caused 
the  troubles.  The  impression  I formed  was  that  he  was 
invited  to  join  in  forming  a Comm,  and  did  so  — just  as  many 
a man  joins  a Comm. — out  of  kindness,  and  for  the  use  of  his 
name  to  advance  the  cause. 

2.  Mr.  Theodore  M.  Davis.  This  gentleman  did  not  at- 

tend the  meeting.  I doubt  if  he  knew  really  anything  about 
the  circumstances  of  “ reorganization  ” in  Boston.  He  spends 
his  winters  on  the  Nile  with  his  sister,  Mrs.  Emma  B.  Andrews, 
and  both  know  much  of  past  troubles  and  her  views  are 
his.  In  February,  1897,  she  wrote  from  their  dahabeah: 
“I  had  heard  nothing  about  the  very  extraordinary  and 
most  unwarrantable  proceedings  of  the  new  Committees,” 
i.e.,  the  London  and  new  Boston  Committee.  “No  re- 
arrangement could  with  justice  or  propriety  be  made  without 
your  knowledge  or  without  you  in  your  original  office.”  Then 
I was  placed  on  the  new  Comm.,  and  that  Comm,  was  ap- 
pointed by  London.  In  Oct.  ’97,  Mrs.  Andrews  wrote  to  a 
friend  of  the  cause : “ It  seems  to  me  most  essential  that  there 
should  be  a controlling  power  on  this  side  over  the  office 
Secretary.  I do  not  understand  the  action  of  the  London 
people  in  regard  to  Dr.  Winslow.  It  seems  to  me  there  must 
have  been  some  influence  exercised  against  him  from  this 
side  — covert  and  unfair.  I never  heard  of  Mrs.  B.  until  I 
received  from  her  in  the  early  summer  a letter  in  very  bad 
taste,  that  made  a very  unpleasant  impression  upon  me, 
and  made  me  feel  that  she  had  been  an  unfortunate  choice 
for  Sec’y.  In  which  opinion  I was  confirmed  by  the  incon- 
ceivably silly  picture  of  her  in  the .” 


142 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


Her  views  are  significant:  “I  saw  Miss  Brodrick,  Prof. 
Sayce,  and  Mr.  Somers  Clarke  (all  members  of  the  London 
Comm.)  in  Egypt,  and  talked  over  the  Egypt  Exploration 
Fund  matters  with  them.  They  all  seemed  to  think  much 
reform  was  needed  in  the  management  of  Soc’y  matters. 
They  all  spoke  most  kindly  and  appreciatively  of  you  and 
of  your  work.”  (June,  1898,  to  W.  C.  W.) 

3.  Mr.  Edward  Robinson.  He  was  probably  asked  to  re- 
organize the  American  Branch  for  the  reason  that  he  would 
doubtless  be  unfavorable  to  me.  He  was  Gen.  Loring’s  friend 
and  associate.  I had  suggested  these  subscribers  to  Lon- 
don as  suitable  for  forming  a nucleus  of  a Comm,  upon  which 
a representative  one  could  be  made:  President  Warren  of 
Boston  University;  Mrs.  Ames,  local  Sec’y  for  Cambridge, 
wife  of  Dean  Ames  of  the  Harvard  Law  School;  President 
Hazard  of  Wellesley;  Bishop  Lawrence;  Mrs.  Arthur  Brooks, 
sister-in-law  to  Bishop  Phillips  Brooks;  Dean  Hoffman,  Prof. 
John  P.  Peters,  Prof.  S.  M.  Jackson,  all  of  New  York;  and 
Dr.  Alexander  McKenzie  of  Cambridge.  I had  previously 
named  such  persons  as  the  Hon.  Seth  Low,  President  Harper, 
Prof.  Norton,  etc. 

4.  Mr.  G.  M.  Lane.  He  knows  nothing  of  archaeology, 
certainly  Egyptology,  and  is  wedded  to  finance.  He  has  no 
time  to  devote  to  the  cause.  His  clerical  work  as  Treasurer 
is  delegated,  I understand,  to  his  clerks.  He  was  on  the 
Loring  Comm,  of  1897. 

5.  Mr.  Thornton  K.  Lothrop.  His  views  are  clearly  ex- 
pressed on  page  8,  respecting  the  legality  of  such  a Comm, 
as  his.  In  1898,  he  wrote  to  me : “ As  you  have  always  seemed 
to  me  the  founder  and  embodiment  of  the  Society  in  this 
country,  and  the  person  who  had  practically  got  the  money, 
I have  been  and  am  entirely  unable  to  understand  why  the 
London  people  do  not  let  you  have  a perfectly  free 
hand  here.  If  there  were  any  general  sense  here  of  any 
injustice  done  you,  the  contributions  would,  unless  I am 
wholly  mistaken,  dwindle  to  practically  nothing.” 

Mr.  Lothrop  knew  that  I was  sorely  hampered,  and  the 
passage  I have  underscored  means  that  I ought  to  have  my 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


143 


authority  over  the  Office  supported  by  London.  I had 
several  conversations  with  him  upon  our  affairs.  I called 
upon  him  as  soon  as  I received  the  circular.  He  said  that 
he  yielded  to  Robinson’s  urgent  request  to  go  upon  the  Com- 
mittee. I inferred  that  when  the  Comm,  met  for  organiza- 
tion no  allusion  was  made  to  me. 

6.  Mr.  A.  M.  Lythgoe.  This  young  man  has  been  exca- 
vating in  Egypt,  which  will  better  qualify  him  for  his  post 
of  curator  in  the  Museum.  His  report  emphasizes  the  fact 
that  antiquities  from  Egypt  will  soon  be  a thing  of  the  past. 

7.  Mr.  J.  E.  Lodge,  also  a young  man,  is  now  Hon.  Sec’y, 
and,  I judge,  has  “a  free  hand.”  I am  told  that  he  and 
Foster  ‘‘could  not  get  on  together.”  I congratulate  the 
former  on  being  now  free  from  such  a weight. 

I should  add  in  justice  to  the  Boston  Comm,  that,  per- 
ceiving its  mistake,  it  has  assmned  the  name  of  “Comm,  for 
the  United  States,”  and  its  new  circular  also  refers  to  the 
“Museums  in  this  country.”  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  still 
de  facto  a Boston  Committee. 


LEGALITY  OF  THE  NEW  COMMITTEE. 

Whether  the  London  Committee  possesses  the  purely 
legal  authority  to  appoint  a self-perpetuating  Committee 
over  any  large  section  of  its  subscribers,  is  doubtful.  James 
B.  Ames,  LL.D.,  dean  of  the  Harvard  Law  School,  was  asked 
for  his  opinion,  and  Mrs.  Ames  replied  for  him : 

Mr.  Ames  wishes  me  to  say  that  he  cannot  give  a definite  answer 
on  the  question  of  the  legality  of  the  appointment  of  the  American 
Committee,  as  he  has  not  seen  the  Articles  of  Association,  but  he 
thinks  it  extremely  improbable  that  the  London  Committee  had  the 
right  to  act  as  they  did,  and  he  has  no  doubt  at  all  of  the  inexpedi- 
ency and  impropriety  of  their  action. 

Rt.  Rev.  F.  W.  Taylor,  D.D.,  etc.,  of  the  Comm,  on  Can- 
ons and  Canon  Law,  a recognized  authority,  wrote  me  that 
the  action  in  London  was  ultra  vires. 

Hon.  George  Foster  Peabody,  of  New  York,  wrote  to 
the  English  Committee  as  follows : 


144 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


I beg  to  address  you  as  one  of  the  subscribers  for  several  years  to 
the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  through  the  American  honorary  secre- 
tary, and  I desire  to  state  that  from  all  the  information  that  comes 
to  me,  it  seems  to  me  that  your  society  has  acted  very  unfairly  to  the 
subscribing  friends  of  the  Fund  in  this  country  in  the  re-constitution 
of  the  Committee.  The  matter  was  certainly  not  put  in  proper  shape 
with  reference  to  giving  a voice  to  the  subscribers ; and  I hope  that  it 
may  be  possible  for  your  society  to  maintain  the  most  cordial  rela- 
tions between  the  subscribers  in  England  and  those  in  America  by 
revoking  the  action  taken  and  providing  for  an  expression  of  opinion 
from  subscribers  in  this  country.  It  would  certainly  seem  most 
strange  that  there  should  be  any  desire  on  the  part  of  English  subscrib- 
ers to  have  the  American  subscribers  treated  in  a different  manner 
from  themselves;  and  they  have  a right,  I understand,  to  appoint 
(elect)  the  officers  and  committee  in  England.  I write  as  one  of  the 
subscribers  to  add  my  protest;  for  I suppose  there  are  others  who 
have  also  written  to  you. 

I remain, 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

Geo.  Foster  Peabody. 

By  “re-constitution  ot  the  Committee,”  Mr.  Peabody 
meant  re-constitution  of  the  administration  of  the  American 
Branch. 

Why  cite  more  opinions?  I will,  however,  refer  to  those 
of  Messrs.  Davis  and  Lothrop,  who  were  placed  upon  the 
Boston  Comm,  by  its  organizer,  Mr.  Robinson. 

Against  “ the  very  extraordinary  and  most  unwarrantable 
proceedings  ” in  thus  forming  a Comm,  to  direct  the  affairs 
of  the  American  Branch,  Mr.  Davis  and  his  sister,  Mrs.  An- 
drews (a  local  Sec’y),  signed  a request  for  a “reorganization, 
mutually  satisfactory,  of  the  Fund  on  a national  footing 
here,  and  international  as  a whole.”  They  could  not  approve 
of  the  Boston  Comm,  as  then  formed.  I quote  the  closing 
paragraph  of  the  request  which  they  signed : 

That,  inasmuch  as  “the  Committee  are  all  perfectly  unanimous  in 
desiring  that  . . . the  position  of  Dr.  W.  should  be  such  as  will 
meet  the  views  of  all  friends  in  America  ” — and  because  Dr.  Wins- 
low’s experience  and  acquaintance  with  the  work  are  peerless  — be- 
cause “the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  can  never  repay  its  debt  of  grati- 
tude to  ” him,  as  Miss  Edwards  said  — and  because  an  active  worker 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


145 


is  needed  to  head  an  initial  committee  for  reorganization  — that  Dr. 
Winslow  be  made  Chairman  of  the  new  Committee. 

Mr.  Davis,  a lawyer,  not  only  disapproved  of  such  reor- 
ganization as  “unwarrantable,”  but  favored  me  for  a posi- 
tion which  I would  not  accept.  For  I wished  a Norton,  a 
Low,  a Harper,  a Gilman,  or  some  other  nationally-repre- 
sentative  man  to  head  an  American  representative  Com- 
mittee. 

But  Mr.  Lothrop’s  legal  opinion  was  decisive:  “That  no 
persons  not  subscribers  were  entitled  in  any  way  to  represent 
the  subscribers.”  Yet,  we  see  a non-subscriber  (Robinson) 
forming  what  is  now  called  “the  Comm,  for  the  U.  S.  A.” 
Lothrop’s  views  respecting  the  rights  of  subscribers  are  clear : 
“Nor  can  I see  how  anything  affecting  the  organization  could 
have  been  properly  done  without  consulting  all  the  sub- 
scribers in  this  country.” 

With  great  additional  force  the  foregoing  opinions  apply 
to  the  formation  of  the  present  Comm,  in  Boston.  Recall 
those  official  words  of  Sir  John  Fowler:  “The  Committee 
fully  agree  with  you  that  in  any  reorganization  of  the  Ameri- 
can Branch  the  approval  of  American  subscribers  is  essential. 
They  can  desire  nothing  else.” 

I conclude  with  my  own  views.  LTnder  the  head  “Pro- 
ceedings of  Committee,”  is  expressed  this  function:  “The 
Committee  may  from  time  to  time  appoint  such  Members 
of  the  Society  to  be  local  Vice  Presidents,  Honorary  local 
Secretaries  and  Honorary  local  Treasurers,  at  home  and 
abroad,  as  they  may  think  fit,  and  may  also  delegate  to  any 
such  Officer  such  of  the  powers  of  the  Committee  as  they 
may  deem  necessary  or  convenient.”  This  is  the  article  of 
association  (62)  under  which  the  London  Comm,  appointed 
Mr.  Robinson. 

In  the  first  place,  no  mention  is  made  of  a or  any  Com- 
mittee in  the  foregoing  list  of  those  to  whom  the  London 
Comm,  may  delegate  “such  of  the  powers,”  etc.  Nor  could 
any  American  Comm,  be  a sub-committee,  thus  allowing  it 
to  act  under  such  designation.  For  clause  60  expressly 


146 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


states  that  sub-committees  must  consist  of  members  of  the 
Comm.,  and  that  the  President  is  ex  officio  a member  of  all 
sub-committees.  It  appears  to  me  a stretch  of  powers  for 
the  London  Comm,  to  itself  delegate  the  powers  of  “ a practi- 
cally independent  committee  ” to  any  body  of  men. 

In  the  second  place,  if  the  London  Comm,  can  delegate 
“the  powers,”  etc.,  as  stated  in  the  article,  it  can  delegate 
such  powers  only  to  members  of  the  Society.  Here  a financial 
prerequisite  to  active  membership  is  to  be  considered.  Clause 
38  states  that  “ no  member,  donor,  or  annual  subscriber  shall 
be  entitled  to  be  present  or  vote  at  any  meeting  (of  the  Soc’y), 
or  upon  a poll,  or  to  exercise  any  privileges  as  a member, 
until  he  shall  have  paid  all  moneys  for  the  time  being  due, 
and  payable  by  him  to  the  society.” 

It  is  clear  that  the  London  Comm,  can  delegate  the  powers 
mentioned  in  clause  62  only  to  members,  subscribing  and 
free  from  all  liabilities.  One  of  the  members  of  the  Boston 
Comm.,  Mr.  Davis,  did  not  attend  the  meeting  for  organiza- 
tion last  October.  He  may  have  already  gone  abroad.  Of 
the  other  six  members,  three  were  not,  or  had  not  been,  sub- 
scribers, viz.,  Messrs.  Robinson,  Lane,  Lythgoe.  Messrs. 
Goodwin  and  Lothrop  were  subscribers  of  long  standing,  Mr. 
Lodge  of  comparatively  recent  date. 

It  follows  that  in  organizing  itself  as  “a  practically  inde- 
pendent Committee  ” to  direct  the  affairs  of  American  sub- 
scribers, less  than  a majority  of  those  organizing  were  sub- 
scribers when  asked  to  form  a Committee. 

My  opinion  is  that  both  in  England  and  the  United  States 
a large  number  of  subscribers  will  conclude  with  me  that 
Bishop  Taylor’s  criticism  upon  the  appointment  of  the  former 
Boston  Committee  applies  more  forcibly  now.  He  said: 
“My  opinion,  in  brief,  is  that  the  whole  action  of  the  Eng- 
lish Committee  was  and  is  ultra  vires” 

Linder  no  circumstances  would  I have  accepted  the  re- 
sponsibility that  Robinson  assumed,  although  I was  the 
founder  of  this  Branch,  “the  official  representative  of  the 
Fund  in  .America,”  and  was  associated  with  the  fine  corps 
of  local  Secretaries  as  their  head.  I do  not  believe  the  Lon- 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND.  147 

don  Committee  have  any  right  to  give  such  power  to  any 
one  person.  Behind  that  Committee,  above  it,  are  the  sub- 
scribers in  England,  who  themselves  elect  that  Comm.  I 
close  with  endorsing  the  words  of  George  Foster  Peabody: 
“It  would  certainly  seem  most  strange  that  there  could  be 
any  desire  on  the  part  of  the  English  subscribers  to  have  the 
American  subscribers  treated  in  a different  manner  from 
themselves.” 

THE  WORK  ACCOnPLISHED. 

The  work  accomplished  during  the  eighteen  or  nineteen 
years  of  my  official  connection  with  the  Fund  cannot  be 
measured  by  figures  alone.  My  literary  labors,  the  influ- 
ence therefrom,  and  my  successful  efforts  to  enlist  the  inter- 
est of  many  people  in  archteological  and  especially  Egyp- 
tological exploration,  are  of  that  kind  of  “achievement  in 
life”  which  never  can  be  put  into  statistical  form.  Presi- 
dent Tucker  of  Dartmouth  recently  said,  regarding  an  earnest 
life  called  hence,  that  “ if  one  is  to  do  anything  in  this  world 
that  is  worth  the  doing,  that  person  must  be  very  lavish  of 
himself.”  Nevertheless,  some  brief  data  of  my  labors  will 
perhaps  be  expected. 

In  December,  1896,  a circular  to  subscribers  contained 
some  data  from  1883  to  July  31,  1896,  as  follows: 

Data  for  Nearly  Thirteen  Years. 


Dr. 

7,277  subscriptions  to  the  General  Fund $68,854.44 

923  subscriptions  to  the  Survey  Fund 7,449.00 


$76,303.44 

Cr. 

Printing $879.72 

Government  envelopes  and  postages  ....  1,781.66 

Stationery 415.44 

Miscellaneous  (office,  etc.) 526 . 65 

Rent 731.50 

Clerical  aid  of  every  kind,  packing,  etc.  . . . 5,631.67 

“ American  Student  ” for  Egypt 347 . 60 

Drafts,  £13,460,  14s.  4d 65,664.11  $75,978.35 

Balance  to  Fund 325.09 


$76,303.44 


148 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


These  statistics  represent  more  time  than  money: 

1.  Total  circulars  and  notices,  etc.,  printed 164  ,000 

2.  Total  government  envelopes 43,125 

3.  Total  letters  and  notes  from  W.  C.  W 21 ,360 

4.  Total  articles,  letters,  etc.,  for  the  press  from 

W.C.W ' 2,560 


To  the  above  $76,303.44  should  be  fairly  added,  to  represent  a 
total  of  American  subscriptions,  some  $2,500,  which  may  be  classi- 
fied thus:  $1,000  from  Miss  Catherine  L.  Wolfe  sent  direct  to  London 
from  N.  Y. ; $250  from  Chautauqua;  some  $1,250  in  various  sums 
from  Americans  “on  the  Nile”  and  in  Europe,  and  from  our  libraries 
direct,  etc.,  etc.  I had  corresponded  with  Miss  Wolfe,  who  wished 
her  subscription  to  be  credited  to  us.  Previous  to  June,  1894,  the 
clerical  labor  of  every  kind  averaged  but  $406  per  year,  notwithstand- 
ing the  enormous  extra  efforts  required  to  build  up  a live  subscription 
list  like  ours.  The  clerical  salary  stands  to-day  at  $800.  Our  office 
expenses  have  included  duties,  mailing  reports  (the  entire  edition 
for  1893-94),  packing,  etc.,  not  reckoned  in  the  London  office  costs, 
but,  nevertheless,  represent  more  economy  even  without  reckoning 
that  printing  and  labor  are  much  cheaper  there  than  here. 

The  gross  receipts  from  July,  1896,  to  July,  1902,  appear  from  the 
Reports  to  have  been  $44,797.30.  But,  properly,  these  additions 
must  be  made:  Of  the  $2,215  received  during  1898-9  by  the  N.  Y. 
Branch,  of  temporary  life,  some  $2,000  represented  the  names  upon 
the  Boston  books;  Mrs.  Thompson  contributed  $500  through  Prof. 
Petrie,  but  she  wrote  to  me  from  abroad  that  she  wished  the  sum 
placed  to  our  credit;  the  Connecticut  Branch  properly  has  a number 
of  our  old  subscribers;  considerable  raised  in  Pittsburgh  (such  as 
$250  I received  from  Mr.  Phipps)  should  be  credited  to  our  efforts; 
but  I do  not  include  the  sums  from  a fine  lot  of  former  subscribers, 
now  attached  to  the  Chicago  and  Philadelphia  Branches.  To  the 
$44,797.30  must  be  added  subscriptions  not  included  by  Mr.  Foster 
for  1902,  amounting  to  $1,696.50.  The  results  for  the  six  years  are: 


Through  the  Boston  Office $46  ,493 . 30 

Through  the  N.  Y.  Branch 2,000.00 

Through  Mrs.  Thompson  500 . 00 

$48,993.30 

The  totals  are  as  follows: 

From  1883  to  July,  1896  $78  ,803 . 44 

From  1896  to  July,  1902  48,993.30 


$127,796.74 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


149 


So  conservative  is  this  statement  that  I may  place  the 
grand  total  which  fairly  belongs  to  the  credit  of  our  labors 
in  Boston  at  the  round  sum  of  $130,000  for  the  years  1883- 
1902,  that  is,  from  the  date  I founded  the  American  Branch 
to  my  “retirement”  from  it  last  summer. 

Here  I wish  to  thank  local  Secretaries  and  other  subscrib- 
ers for  their  cooperation  and  particularly  to  emphasize  the 
zeal  of  the  late  Sec’y,  Mrs.  B.,  in  raising  funds  since  the  office 
was  reorganized  in  1897  by  the  appointment  of  an  Hon. 
Treasurer  and  Sec’y  by  the  London  Committee.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  the  formation  of  the  Graeco-Roman 
Branch  in  1896  afforded  a splendid  enticement  to  subscribe; 
and  that  during  the  earlier  years  of  the  Fund  there  was  no 
Archaeological  Survey  branch  to  attract  subscriptions.  These 
two  factors  account  largely  for  the  increase  of  subscriptions 
during  1889-1902.  As  evidence  of  my  personal  labors  to 
the  last,  for  the  year  up  to  June,  1902,  when  I was  “retired,” 
I despatched  651  hand-written  letters  duly  recorded. 

My  many  assistants,  too,  must  be  recognized  in  all  this 
work.  Perfect  harmony  always  existed  between  us  down 
to  the  appointment  of  Mrs.  B.  from  London,  except  in  one 
instance,  that  of  a person  recommended  to  me  by  Gen. 
Loring,  but  whose  ill  health  utterly  unfitted  her  for  the  posi- 
tion. Later,  he  expressed  regret  to  me,  and  one  of  his  notes 
remarked  “ that  she  suffered  for  many  months  — if  not 
years  — from  the  most  helpless  nervous  prostration.”  I 
recall  how  with  assistants  like  Miss  Payne,  Miss  Blanchard, 
Miss  Dennison,  not  one  ripple  of  disagreement  occurred. 
After  thirteen  months  of  service  as  office  Sec’y,  Miss  Den- 
nison wrote  to  me  as  follows: 

Dear  Dr.  Winslow:  As  I am  expecting  very  soon  to  leave  home  I 
want  to  express  to  you  again  and  in  writing  my  appreciation  and 
thanks  for  the  uniform  kindness,  courtesy,  and  helpfulness  you 
always  showed  me  while  I was  officially  connected  with  you  in  the 
Fund  office.  Wherever  I may  be,  I shall  always  carry  with  me  the 
happy  recollection  of  congenial  duties,  performed  the  more  faith- 
fully for  the  inspiration  your  unflagging  zeal  and  earnest  counsel 
gave  me. 

I was  often  in  perplexity  because  of  the  many  slips  and  errors  in 


150 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


previous  record-keeping  by  my  immediate  predecessor,  but  I believe 
I left  the  books  in  much  better  order  than  I found  them.  This  again 
reminds  me  of  the  invaluable  help  your  advice  and  memory  gave  me. 
It  also  gives  me  satisfaction  to  think  that  through  our  always  har- 
monious efforts  the  Fund  had  attained  its  highest  financial  standing. 
I trust  that  redoubled  prosperity  still  awaits  your  faith  and  zeal. 

Ever  faithfully  yours, 

Helen  Dennison,  ex-Sec’y. 

Miss  Dennison  refers  particularly  to  errors  in  the  orders 
for  books  sent  to  the  London  Office  by  that  Sec’y  who  was 
ill  much  of  the  time. 

Miss  Marie  A.  Molineaux,  Ph.D.,  the  author,  very  kindly 
aided  me  for  several  weeks  in  1894,  when  my  eyes  seriously 
troubled  me.  She  removed  to  the  suburbs,  and  I saw  but 
little  of  her.  Accordingly  I was  the  more  pleased  to  receive 
from  this  accomplished  woman,  in  1897,  the  following  note 
respecting  the  reorganization  of  the  Boston  Office  at  that 
time  with  Gen.  Loring  as  its  head: 

Dear  Dr.  Winslow:  Enclosed  is  the  draft  of  what  I wrote  to  the 
Parent  Society.  I hope  I said  nothing  unwise  nor  which  you  would 
disapprove.  I wrote  what  I felt,  and  you  are  not  responsible,  since 
you  only  hear  of  my  action  after  it  has  taken  place.  Hoping  the 
Society  will  see  the  erroneous  position  into  which  it  has  been  misled, 
I am, 

Yours  for  justice, 

Marie  Ada  Molineaux. 

To  the  Honorable,  the  President  and  Council  of  the  Egypt 
Exploration  Fund,  London: 

Gentlemen, — As  a subscriber  and  one  of  the  local  Hon.  Secretaries 
I beg  most  earnestly  that  your  honorable  body  give  a reconsider- 
ation to  the  plan  for  a reorganization  in  the  United  States,  feeling 
sure  that  the  present  plan  has  been  entered  upon  under  a misunder- 
standing of  the  existent  circumstances. 

The  American  subscribers,  as  a whole,  I feel  should  have  some 
voice  in  the  selection  of  the  American  Committee,  and  that  Dr.  Wins- 
low, to  whom  the  Fund  owes  its  position  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic, 
should  not  be  relegated  to  a subordinate  and  inferior  place. 

Many  subscribers  are  wondering  what  credentials  as  to  activity  in 
the  work  for  the  Fund,  Gen.  Charles  G.  Loring  was  able  to  offer. 

With  sentiments  of  the  highest  consideration,  I am, 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

Marie  Ada  Molineaux. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


151 


The  annual  reports  may  be  referred  to  for  their  continuous 
and  kind  references  to  the  results  from  my  labors;  and  even 
when  a Sec’y  (appointed  from  London)  was  a part  of  the 
Boston  Office,  the  official  English  circular  of  1899  remarked: 
“From  its  foundation,  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  has 
received  large  pecuniary  support  from  the  United  States, 
chiefly  through  the  enthusiasm  and  energy  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
W.  C.  Winslow,  of  Boston.”  The  only  criticisms  have  been 
the  pleasantries  that  Brother  Jonathan  should  not  be  allowed 
to  give  more  than  John  Bull. 

Miss  Amelia  B.  Edwards  wrote  to  me:  “My  dear  Friend: 
It  is  out  of  the  question  that  we  can  accept  a £50  donation 
from  you  towards  the  ‘Fowler  Fund.’  . . . Your  immense 
and  invaluable  services,  and  the  large  subscriptions  you 
annually  collect  for  our  explorations  in  Egypt,  to  say  nothing 
of  your  time,  which  is  money,  are  enough  — more  than  any 
other  one  would  give  us,  either  in  America  or  Great  Britain. 
The  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  can  never  repay  its  debt  of 
gratitude  to  you,”  etc. 

Prof.  F.  W.  Williams,  Ph.D.,  the  Treasurer  of  the  Ameri- 
can Oriental  Society,  writes  from  New  Haven:  “I  cannot 
sufficiently  express  my  regret  at  the  misfortune  to  the  Fund 
in  losing  your  services.”  He  is  Treasurer  of  the  Connecticut 
Branch  of  the  Fund,  and  its  President,  Charles  Ray  Palmer, 
D.D.,  has  also  kindly  tendered  me  his  sympathy. 

James  S.  Stone,  D.D.,  rector  of  St.  James’s,  Chicago, 
formerly  of  the  Church  of  England,  pointedly  writes:  “Of 
course  you  know  I am  one  who  refuses  to  subscribe  to  the 
Fund  or  to  continue  as  a local  Sec’y  until  some  justice  is 
done  you.”  This  is  the  type  of  man  to  be  on  the  English 
Committee  when  questions  of  right  or  wrong  are  raised. 

H.  C.  Rowley,  Esq.,  publisher  of  Webster's  Dictionary, 
writes  from  Springfield:  “The  conviction  has  been  growing 
that  matters  are  not  being  conducted  as  they  should  be  if 
loyal  support  is  to  be  expected  from  people  in  this  country” 
(May  13,  1903). 

Rev.  Daniel  Goodwin,  Ph.D.,  of  East  Greenwich,  R.  I., 
writes:  “ Unless  the  Committee  (in  Boston)  makes  some 


152 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


further  explanation  of  their  position,  and  their  ground  for 
omitting  your  name  from  the  official  list  of  the  Fund,  it  can- 
not but  unsettle  the  minds  of  the  old  subscribers,  and  cause 
them,  in  many  cases,  to  withhold  their  gifts.  The  interest 
of  those,  I have  any  acquaintance  with,  depends  primarily 
upon  their  confidence  in  you.” 

John  J.  May,  an  honored  citizen  of  Boston,  has  recently 
“passed  beyond.”  A little  before,  he  had  written  to  me: 
“ I would  sign  a respectful  request  to  the  parties  in  England 
that  you  be  now  made  Honorary  V.  P.,  and  if  the  request 
is  granted,  I will  renew  my  subscription.” 

Thornton  K.  Lothrop,  Esq.,  of  the  new  Boston  Com- 
mittee, wrote  me  of  the  anticipated  results  from  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  old  Boston  Committee:  “If  there  were  any 
general  sense  here  of  any  injustice  done  you,  the  contributions 
in  this  country  would,  unless  I am  wholly  mistaken,  dwindle 
to  practically  nothing.” 

Prof.  Edgar  A.  Forbes,  of  the  Southern  Baptist  Theol. 
Sem’y,  wrote  to  me  of  the  absence  of  my  name  on  the  new 
circular:  “That  is  the  trade-mark  on  everything  Egyptian 
in  these  parts.” 

William  G.  Johnston,  Esq.,  a patron  from  the  first  al- 
most, sententiously  remarks:  “You  can  do  better  without 
them  than  they  without  you.” 

But  enough.  I have  simply  tried  “to  do  my  best”  to 
advance  the  cause  of  archaeology  by  exploration  in  Egypt. 
When  I began,  “Pithom”  had  been  discovered,  but  the  book 
had  not  appeared.  Now,  23  vols.  of  the  “Fund”  work,  12 
of  the  “Archaeological  Survey,”  and  five  vols.  of  the  “Graeco- 
Roman  Branch,”  in  all  forty  vols.  have  been  published, 
to  which  may  be  added  much  other  valuable  matter.  Among 
my  laborious  efforts  was  the  inducing  some  seventy  insti- 
tutions to  become  subscribers  to  the  society.  To  secure 
one  of  these,  recently  represented,  I wrote  over  a dozen 
letters.  No  less  than  $1,482.50  in  the  last  Annual  Report 
came  from  these  institutions.  Except  that  the  G.  R.  Branch 
issued  no  vol.  last  year,  the  amount  would  have  been  con- 
siderably larger.  The  double  vol.  issued  this  year  at  $10 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


153 


will  be  recorded  to  the  credit  of  the  new  Boston  Office.  As 
the  English  Hon.  Treasurer  knows,  I purposed  an  endowment 
fund  here,  and  proposed  starting  it  with  $500.  I thought 
that  perhaps  $30,000  would  be  a nucleus  of  an  endowment 
for  practical  purposes,  such,  e.g.,  as  training  an  American 
student  in  Egypt  in  the  science  of  excavation  and  transla- 
tion. A legacy  of  $1,000  had  been  left  in  my  care  by  a lady 
whom  I had  interested  in  the  cause.  John  J.  May’s  words 
are  comforting:  “I  think  you  may  well  rest  content  with 
the  large  service  that  you  have  rendered  to  this  important 
work,  and  the  recognition  thereof  that  has  been  secured.” 
The  words  of  Mrs.  Andrew  Bigelow  of  Southboro,  Mass., 
daughter  of  the  late  Hon.  Marshall  P.  Wilder,  express  the 
hope  of  many  subscribers:  “I  hope  the  real  justice  of  your 
position  will  be  vindicated.” 

nONUMENTAL  OBJECTS  FOR  BOSTON. 

In  the  early  years  of  the  Fund  I made  strenuous  efforts  to 
secure  objects  for  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts.  But  a 
broader  conception  of  my  duty  came  with  the  generous 
response  to  my  appeals  from  all  over  the  land,  and  with  the 
just  claim  of  other  museums.  I advocated  a pro  rata  rule 
for  the  distribution  of  antiquities,  which  was  adopted.  But 
my  story  now  relates  to  the  museum  in  Boston. 

“I  believe  in  the  spade,”  with  Dr.  O.  W.  Holmes,  and  I 
ardently  believe  in  the  museum  as  an  educator.  My  illus- 
trated article,  “Egypt  at  Home,”  in  the  New  England  Maga- 
zine for  April,  1890,  called  the  Museum  in  Boston  “the 
crown-jewel  of  the  city’s  higher  educational  advantages.” 
That  sketch  affords  some  idea  of  the  priceless  monumental 
objects  in  that  collection  from  the  Fund.  For  monumental 
objects  of  such  size  and  beauty  will  not  be  allowed  again 
to  leave  Egypt.  From  1883  to  1891  were  “years  of  plenty,” 
monumentally,  and  I grasped  the  opportunity  with  all  my 
energy,  nobly  supported  by  Miss  Edwards.  The  new  curator, 
Mr.  Lythgoe,  wrote  in  Jan’y,  from  Egypt,  “that  the  time 
is  not  far  distant  when  it  will  be  practically  an  impossibility 
to  hope  to  add  to  our  collections  to  any  considerable  extent” 


154 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


(Museum  Report,  p.  96).  He  refers  to  the  small  antiquities, 
such  as  have  come  from  Abydos. 

Samuel  Eliot,  LL.D.,  then  acting  President,  officially 
wrote:  “The  great  value  and  importance  of  these  additions 
to  the  Museum  collection  are  highly  appreciated;  and,  as 
time  goes  on,  they  will  minister  very  largely  to  the  culti- 
vation of  our  people.  Long  years  hence,  the  Egypt  Ex- 
ploration Fund  and  its  officers  will  be  gratefully  remembered 
in  Boston.”  When  the  palm-leaf  column  was  set  up,  he 
wrote  to  me  that  “it  calls  for  the  gratitude  of  all  who  are 
interested  in  the  Museum  and  its  work  for  our  people.” 
Of  the  first  donation,  consisting  of  small  objects,  Mr.  Charles 
C.  Perkins,  remarked  in  the  Museum  Report  for  1885:  “Cer- 
tainly the  most  notable,  if  not  the  largest,  donation  to  the 
Museum  during  the  year  is  that  made  by  the  Egypt  Ex- 
ploration Fund.  . . . The  gift  made  through  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Winslow,  apart  from  its  high  historical  and  archaeological 
interest,  is  especially  gratifying,”  etc.,  etc. 

In  1887,  the  formal  vote  of  thanks  from  the  Trustees 

concluded:  “ made  by  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund 

through  the  Rev.  W.  C.  Winslow,  Vice  President,”  etc. 
Gem  Loring,  in  enclosing  the  certificate,  wrote  to  me:  “A 
plain  vote  of  thanks  seems  bald  for  such  a noble  gift.  Our 
President  is  in  England,  and  I shall  get  him  to  see  some  of 
the  officers  and  say  what  we  feel  towards  them  and  you.” 

Hon.  Martin  Brimmer,  in  enclosing  a later  resolution  of  like 
tenor,  sent  to  me  a long  and  handsome  autographic  letter, 
concluding  thus:  “The  Trustees  gratefully  appreciate  the 
kind  services  of  Miss  Edwards,  of  Mr.  Petrie,  and  of  Mr. 
Head  in  the  selection  and  cataloguing  of  the  objects  given; 
and  they  feel  especially  indebted  to  you  for  the  efficient 
interest  you  have  taken  in  this  gift  to  the  Museum.” 

Let  us  turn  to  the  Fund  reports  for  a few  excerpts: 

1884.  “That  the  meeting  present  to  the  Museum  of  Bos- 
ton a second  selection,  accompanied  by  a cordial  vote  of 
thanks  to  the  Rev.  W.  C.  Winslow.” 

1885.  “Mr.  John  Evans,  F.R.S.,  moved  a resolution  that 
‘this  meeting  present  to  the  Fine  Arts  Museum  of  Boston, 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


155 


with  sincere  thanks  to  the  Rev.  W.  C.  Winslow,  a selection 
of  antiquities/  etc.,  etc.  Hon.  E.  J.  Phelps,  American  min- 
ister, in  thanking  the  meeting,  added:  ‘In  regard  to  the 
election  of  the  Rev.  W.  C.  W.  as  a V.  P.  his  Excellency 
warmly  commended  the  action  of  the  Society,  saying  ‘they 
could  not  have  chosen  a better  man.’  ” 

1886.  “Touching  the  donation  to  the  Museum  of  Fine 
Arts,  Boston,  Mr.  Poole  rejoiced  to  say  that  it  was  really  a 
splendid  donation,  but  little  inferior  to  that  which  had  just 
been  voted  to  the  British  Museum,”  etc.,  etc. 

1887.  ‘‘The  donation  of  antiquities  to  the  Museum  of  Fine  Arts, 
Boston,  was  moved  by  Miss  Amelia  B.  Edwards,  who  pointed  out 
that  the  American  subscription  was  this  year  equal  in  amount  to 
the  sum  subscribed  on  the  English  side  of  the  ledger.  . . . Miss 
Edwards  then  said  how  much  . . . she  felt  she  owed  to  the  moral 
support  of  their  indefatigable  and  inestimable  American  V.  P.,  Dr. 
Winslow,  etc.  . . . Miss  Edwards  then  proposed  that,  in  addition 
to  minor  objects,  the  following  works  of  sculpture  should  be  pre- 
sented, and  that  the  action  of  the  Committee  in  transmitting  the 
statue  of  Rameses  II  be  approved:  (1)  A seated  statue  of  Rameses 
II,  of  heroic  size,  in  black  granite  (from  the  ‘fields  of  Zoan’).  (2)  A 
headless  black-granite  sphinx  of  the  Hyksos  period,  etc.  (3)  A 
squatting  statue,  in  black  granite,  of  the  style  of  the  twelfth  dynasty, 
inscribed  with  the  names  and  titles,  etc.  (of  the  brother  of  the  Pha- 
raoh of  the  Exodus).  (4)  A selection  of  Greek  vases  from  Naukratis.” 
Mr.  Henry  White  of  the  American  Legation,  “in  the  absence  of  Mr. 
Phelps  and  of  Dr.  Winslow,”  responded.  “He  could  testify  to  the 
interest  created  in  Boston  by  the  arrival  of  the  colossal  statue  of 
Rameses  II,”  etc.,  etc. 

1888.  This  account  is  from  her  address  verbatim  in  Miss  Edwards’ 
handwriting,  which  she  sent  me:  “.  . . The  gift  which  we  are  send- 
ing this  year  is  of  unexampled  magnitude  and  beauty.  . . ” The 
objects  are:  (1)  “The  colossal  Hathor  Capital  in  red  granite,  which 
is  by  far  the  most  beautiful  and  perfect  specimen  of  the  ideal  school 
of  Egyptian  ever  discovered,”  etc.  (2)  “The  upper  half  of  a colos- 
sal statue  of  a king,  the  companion  to  which  we  have  just  voted  to 
the  British  Museum,”  etc.  (3)  “The  great  granite  lotus-bud  capi- 
tal,” etc.  Weight  over  15  tons.  (4)  “A  fine  red  granite  slab  in 
bas-relief  from  the  Festival  Hall  of  Osorkon  II,”  etc.  (5)  “Two 
very  interesting  bas-relief  slabs  in  fine  limestone  from  a temple  to 
Hathor,”  etc. 

“We  thus  send  to  America  specimens  of  the  art  of  the  great  temple 


156 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


of  Bubastis,  dating  from  the  time  of  its  founder,  Khufu,  the  builder 
of  the  great  pyramid,”  etc.  “We  give  of  the  best  we  have  to  give 
— the  very  flower  of  all  that  Naville  found  at  Bubastis.”  Excepting 
the  statue  of  Apepi  (historical),  “the  most  beautiful,  the  most  per- 
fect, and  the  largest  monuments  yielded  by  this  great  historic  site, 
which  has  cost,  at  the  lowest  calculation,  some  2,400  pounds,  a sum 
to  which  our  American  subscribers  contributed  no  less-  than  twelve 
hundred.”  [New  England  Mag.,  Ibid.] 

I now  quote  from  the  Report  for  1888 : “ Miss  Edwards 
concluded  with  a cordial  reference  to  the  great  services  of 
Dr.  Winslow,  their  Vice  President  for  America,  to  whom  the 
Society  was  deeply  indebted  for  the  zeal  with  which  he  had 
popularized  the  work  of  the  Fund  in  the  United  States,  and 
to  whom  his  fellow-countrymen  were  no  less  indebted  for  the 
interest  which  he  had  induced  them  to  take  in  a delightful 
study,  as  well  as  for  the  splendid  monuments  with  which, 
through  his  exertions,  the  Boston  collection  has  been  en- 
riched.” 

I dislike  to  cite  more  upon  this  topic,  especially  from  Miss 
Edwards.  One  or  two  brief  extracts  must  suffice:  “My 
very  dear  Friend : Just  a line  in  haste  to  say  that  the  colossus 
of  Rameses  II  is  to  be  yours.  I am  more  delighted  than  I 
have  words  to  express.  This  crowning  ornament  to  your 
Museum  (the  Egyptian  Hall)  will  cover  you  with  glory,  for 
it  is  entirely  due  to  your  pre-eminent  services,”  etc.,  etc. 
Again:  “The  colossus  is  the  finest  thing  of  the  season,  and 
he  (Petrie)  describes  it  as  perfect,  except  a little  battered 
about  the  head.  ...  It  is  recognized  by  Committee,  Petrie 
and  all,  that  this  grand  object  is  due  to  America  for  her 
loyal  support,  and  to  you  for  your  great  zeal  and  unpar- 
alleled services.” 

Prof.  Petrie  wrote  to  me  a most  interesting  letter  respect- 
ing the  colossus,  indicative  of  his  estimation  of  the  statue. 
Regarding  the  Bubastis  sculptures,  Miss  Edwards  added:  “I 
don’t  know  what  -we  should  do  without  you.  You  may  be  sure 
we  shall  vote  something  of  the  very  best  to  Boston.”  Of  the 
gold  handle  to  Pharaoh  Hophra’s  tray,  for  which  I pleaded, 
she  wrote  that  “the  Committee  have  voted  the  big  gold 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


157 


handle  to  Boston  — that  massive  lotus-pattern  handle,  etc. 
It  is  unique.”  In  December,  1891,  she  wrote  me  of  the 
Palm-leaf  Column  (now  in  Boston)  that  it  and  its  companions 
are  “the  richest  columns  ever  brought  to  Europe  from 
Egypt.”  No  such  trophy  will  ever  again  come  to  us  from 
Egypt.  Its  gracefulness  adds  a strong  touch  of  beauty 
to  the  somewhat  sombre  aspect  of  the  Egypt  Exploration 
Fund  hall  in  the  Museum,  where  Rameses  II  sits  in 
solemn  state. 

During  her  visit  to  Boston  to  lecture,  Miss  Edwards 
most  kindly  emphasized  my  efforts  for  the  Museum. 
The  Gazette  report  of  her  address  at  the  public  breakfast  in 
her  honor  states  “Miss  Edwards  took  the  opportunity  to 
point  out  that  to  Dr.  Winslow  was  due  the  credit  of  every 
single  monument  of  Egyptian  art  that  had  come  (from  the 
Fund)  to  the  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,”  etc.  The  Herald, 
Globe  and  other  reports  stated  the  same,  the  Globe  saying: 
“ Gen.  Loring  expressed  the  thanks  of  the  Museum  for  many 
kindnesses  from  Miss  Edwards,  who  begged  permission  to 
say  in  reply  that  though  always  glad  and  eager  to  have  the 
best  of  everything  come  to  America,  yet  nothing  could  have 
come  from  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  but  for  Dr.  Winslow, 
who  had  devoted  himself  so  heartily  to  the  work  and  had 
been  so  very  successful  in  raising  funds  for  it.” 

In  kindly  recognition  of  my  services,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  wishes  of  the  Comm.,  Miss  Edwards  prepared  a 
large  number  of  cards  to  be  placed  in  the  cases  containing 
the  “objects”  from  the  Fund.  One  set  read  as  follows: 
“Presented  to  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts  by  the  Egypt 
Exploration  F und,  through  the  Rev.  W.  C.  Winslow.  Amelia 
B.  Edwards,  Hon.  Sec’y.”  Another  set  of  cards  stated: 
“ The  contents  of  this  Case  are  presented  to  the  Art  Museum 
of  Boston  through  the  Rev.  W.  C.  Winslow  by  the  Egypt 
Exploration  Fund.”  These  cards  were  signed  by  herself, 
officially.  A few  cards  were  signed  by  both  her  and  Poole, 
as  Hon.  Sec’y’s.  I disliked  to  have  a profusion  of  these  cards 
in  the  cases,  and  Gen.  Loring  favored  heartily  my  plan, 
later  on,  of  a small  neat  printed  card  which  read:  “The  E. 


158 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


E.  F.  presents  the  Objects  in  this  case  to  the  Museum  of  Fine 
Arts  through  the  Rev.  W.  C.  Winslow,  LL.D.,  of  Boston, 
American  V.  P.  of  the  Fund.  Amelia  B.  Edwards,  Hono- 
rary Secretary.”  Both  Poole  and  Miss  E.  liked  my  plan, 
and  she  remarked  to  me,  when  she  was  in  Boston,  that  it 
was  “neatly  done.”  Thus,  three  or  four  cases  contained 
two  of  these  cards  each. 

An  Unprecedented  Act.  Why  I have  been  compelled 
to  make  so  long  a prelude  (distasteful  to  myself)  to  what 
follows,  will  now  appear. 

Since  1887-8  three  or  four  of  the  cases  of  antiquities  have 
contained  the  few  printed  cards  as  specified.  Mr.  Robinson 
formed  his  Committee  in  Oct.,  1902,  and  Mr.  Lythgoe,  who 
had  just  been  appointed  curator  of  the  Egyptian  depart- 
ment, attended  the  meeting.  I do  not  know  this  young 
man  personally.  Not  long  after  the  formation  of  the  Comm., 
Lythgoe  left  for  Egypt.  But,  as  curator,  and  a member  of 
the  new  Comm.,  he  had  time  to  “overhaul”  some  of  the 
cases,  and  put  labels  to  objects  recently  arrived  from  the 
Fund. 

He  removed  all  the  cards  containing  my  name.  In  doing 
this,  he  negatived  the  official  action  from  London,  over  the 
official  signature  of  Miss  Edwards.  He  ignored  the  official 
recognition  by  the  Trustees  of  the  Museum.  He  dishonored 
the  official  sanction  of  Loring  as  director  of  the  Museum, 
and  curator  of  this  department.  He  disregarded  what  had 
become  a permanent  fixture,  viz.,  the  cards  placed  with  the 
objects  for  15  or  16  years.  He  knew  that  I visited  the  col- 
lection for  study,  and  that  I could  not  fail  to  note  his  handi- 
work. I add  that  he  had  never  subscribed  to  the  Fund,  nor 
aided  in  any  way  towards  securing  the  objects. 

During  the  years  1897  to  1902,  when  Loring  felt  keenly 
the  “retirement”  of  his  Committee,  and  I had  been  so  slan- 
dered to  him  by  Mrs.  B.  and  Foster,  he  was  too  much  of  a 
gentleman  and  a man  to  stoop  to  an  unprecedented  act  like 
that  just  described.  But  more.  In  1902,  and  after  Loring 
saw  that  he  had  been  “misinformed”  by  the  two  persons 
just  named,  he  placed  a leather  label  in  gold  lettering  upon 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


159 


a facsimile  of  Mena’s  gold  bar  found  at  Abydos.  The  orig- 
inal went  to  Chicago,  and  a facsimile  was  made  for  the 
British  Museum.  Through  Mr.  Grueber’s  thoughtfulness 
I secured  a facsimile,  and  presented  it  personally.  It  was 
labeled  by  Loring  as  my  'personal  gift.  This  label,  also, 
was  removed  from  this  representation  of  a valuable  memento 
of  Egypt’s  first  king.  Was  Lythgoe  in  haste?  He  had 
time  to  have  labeled  several  objects  of  value  and  interest 
loaned  by  Mr.  Davis,  a member  of  his  Committee.  These 
labels  are  beautifully  executed.  I observe  that  Lythgoe 
in  his  first  report  to  the  Museum,  while  praising  the  collection 
from  the  Fund  for  its  scientific  and  other  value,  names  par- 
ticularly the  “gold  and  sard  scepter  of  King  Khasekhemui 
of  the  second  dynasty.”  It  is  the  oldest  known  scepter  in 
the  world!  Through  my  earnest  request  for  an  archaic 
ornament,  historically  valuable,  and  my  subscription  of 
1375  sent  to  London,  this  unique  relic  was  presented  to  Bos- 
ton. When  I saw  Gen.  Loring,  then  feeble,  after  he  had  so 
kindly  labeled  the  facsimile  to  “Mena’s  bar,”  I found  that 
he  was  not  aware  of  all  the  circumstances  connected  with 
the  scepter;  I read  to  him  one  or  two  extracts  from  London 
letters  thereon;  and  he  remarked  that  the  scepter  could  be 
properly  labeled  later  on.  (Here  read  about  the  scepter 
under  “Distribution  of  Ushabtis.”) 

Is  there  justification  for  Lythgoe’s  unprecedented  trans- 
action? Suppose  he  said,  “Winslow  is  no  longer  V.  P.” 
But  the  dates,  ranging  from  1884-5  to  1888,  were  upon  the 
various  objects  exhibited.  The  dates  explained  the  case. 
The  new  curator  could  have  added  to  “American  V.  P.”  the 
date,  e.g.,  “American  V.  P.  1886-1902.” 

In  one  case  a pasteboard  of  small  trifles  from  Denderah 
is  placed,  and  another  case  is  treated  likewise.  I am  unwill- 
ing to  think  this  was  an  artifice  so  that  Lythgoe  could  say: 
“ The  cards  state  ‘ the  objects  in  this  case  were  presented 
through  Rev.  W.  C.  W.,’  but  as  all  of  them  were  not  so  pre- 
sented (after  my  change)  I removed  the  cards.” 

Rev.  Dr.  Daniel  Goodwin’s  remark,  already  quoted,  con- 
cerning the  “ omitting  your  name  from  the  official  list  of  the 


160 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


Fund”  in  Boston  perhaps  points  to  the  aim  of  a few  to 
obliterate  me  from  all  association  with  past  work  for  the 
Fund  and  the  results  secured  therefrom.  I add  that  the 
best  “return”  I can  possibly  have  for  my  sincere  and  earnest 
labors  for  the  Museum,  are  well  expressed  by  Dr.  Samuel 
Eliot:  “As  time  goes  on  these  additions  will  minister  very 
largely  to  the  cultivation  of  our  people.”  What  would 
Perkins,  Brimmer,  Eliot,  Loring,  say  could  they  now  speak? 

Note. 

The  eighteen  Papyri,  from  the  Fayum,  presented  by  the  Committee 
to  this  portion  of  our  land,  all  went  to  Harvard  Library  and  its  Semitic 
Museum  — particularly  as  Gen.  Loring  thought  it  more  suitable,  and 
he  desired  artistic  objects  for  his  Museum.  I had  pleaded  for  a New 
Testament  fragment,  and  the  oldest  extant  bit  of  St.  Paul  (Romans 
I)  is  now  in  Cambridge.  All  the  118  papyri  passed  through  my 
hands  for  delivery,  but  simply  as  an  agent  for  the  Fund.  In  no 
sense  am  I officially  or  personally  to  be  associated  with  these  rare 
gifts.  I only  raised  money  for  the  work  of  digging  them  up,  de- 
ciphering them,  and  publishing  the  results. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

Some  definite  conclusions  may  now  be  reached  from  the 
statements  and  evidence  presented  in  these  pages.  They 
relate  to  the  London  Committee,  to  the  Boston  Committee, 
to  the  American  subscribers  and  to  myself. 

I.  The  London  Committee.  It  is  composed  of  about  30 
members,  more  than  half  of  whom  rarely  attend  the  monthly 
meeting.  Some  of  them  attend  a portion  of  the  meetings. 
Perhaps  six  or  eight  constantly  attend  the  meetings.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  the  affairs  of  the  Society  are  practi- 
cally administered  by  a minority  — three  or  four  members 
form  a quorum.  But  for  all  this  the  Comm,  as  a body  must 
be  held  responsible  for  the  action  taken  at  any  meeting. 

(1)  This  Committee  was  well  informed  of  the  condition 
of  affairs  in  the  Boston  Office  and  some  of  its  active  members 
were  most  thoroughly  informed  thereon.  In  addition  to  the 
evidence  in  their  hands  from  me  were  letters  received  by 
them  from  American  subscribers  containing  data  of  great 
importance.  The  letters  to  President  Evans,  to  Dyer,  to 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


161 


Percival  and  others  should  have  alone  settled  the  case.  Very 
Rev.  E.  A.  Hoffman  wrote  to  me:  “I  cannot  see  how  the 
Comm,  can  pass  over  such  letters.”  The  opinions  of  two  or 
three  pastors  were  per  se  enough.  The  Comm,  had  evidence, 
clear  and  decisive,  respecting  printing,  the  distribution  of 
ushabtis,  the  matter  of  the  Pittsburg  Branch,  etc.,  etc. 

(2)  The  Committee  is  otherwise  open  to  criticism.  It  gave 
me  authority,  but  did  not  enforce  it.  Had  it  done  its  duty 
to  me  and  to  American  subscribers,  all  the  trouble  had  been 
averted  or  promptly  checked.  Prof.  Tyler,  of  Cornell,  truly 
remarked  that  it  was  “ cowardly  ” in  the  Comm,  to  leave  me 
“to  fight  the  battle  alone.”  Henry  Phipps,  of  the  Carnegie 
Steel  Trust,  grasped  the  situation:  “To  any  business  man  it 
is  clear  that  Dr.  Winslow  should  have  power  to  displace  or 
appoint  any  assistant  that  he  sees  fit.”  T.  K.  Lothrop,  of 
the  new  Boston  Comm.,  had  himself  said:  “I  am  entirely 
unable  to  understand  why  the  London  people  do  not  let  you 
have  a perfectly  free  hand  here.”  Mrs.  Andrews,  represent- 
ing her  brother,  Mr.  Davis,  now  on  the  new  Boston  Comm., 
had  declared  “that  there  should  be  a controlling  power  on 
this  side  over  the  Office  Secretary.” 

(3)  A proper  Office  for  our  American  Branch  I sought  to 
have  had,  for  ours  was  not  suitable  in  any  sense,  and  I,  placed 
in  “general  control  ” over  the  work  of  the  Office,  had  no  con- 
trol at  all  over  the  Office.  The  Comm,  knew  my  views,  and 
that  a proper  Office  should  be  obtained. 

(4)  The  Committee  has  not  kept  its  pledge  or  assurance 
“that  in  any  reorganization  of  the  American  Branch  the 
approval  of  American  subscribers  is  essential.” 

(5)  When,  last  January,  the  Local  Secretaries,  almost 
en  masse,  made  a request  of  the  Comm,  respecting  myself, 
their  request  was  simply  shelved.*  The  previous  President 
had  stated  that  the  Comm,  desired  “that  the  composition 
of  the  American  Comm,  and  the  position  of  Dr.  Winslow 
should  be  such  as  will  meet  the  views  of  all  friends  in 
America.” 

* This  request  follows  these  “ Conclusions,”  and  should  be  scanned  by  my 
readers. 


162 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


(6)  Disrespect  has  been  otherwise  offered  to  American 
subscribers,  of  which  is  the  following  remarkable  instance: 
In  1897,  about  150  letters  were  sent  by  subscribers  to  the 
Comm.,  protesting  against  the  appointment  of  a Boston 
Comm,  in  so  arbitrary  a manner.  They  were  written  in  con- 
fidence, and  their  writers  expressed  themselves  freely.  These 
letters  were  sent  from  London  to  the  Boston  Committee  ! 
After  that  Comm,  retired  I earnestly  begged  the  London 
Comm,  to  write  to  Loring  to  destroy  or  return  them.  When 
Rev.  Chas.  James  Wood  of  York,  Penn.,  heard  of  the  trans- 
action, he  wrote  to  me:  “I  am  surprised  that  the  London 
Comm,  should  have  sent  on  personal  letters  to  Gen.  Loring. 
This  was  an  extraordinary  proceeding  — are  there  no  gentle- 
men in  England  that  such  people  be  put  upon  committees? 
The  act  was  vulgar,  it  was  low.”  This  well-knowTn  author 
voiced  the  opinions  of  many  others. 

(7)  Finally,  it  appears  that  there  has  been  “mismanage- 
ment ” in  London  and  that  some  remedy  should  be  applied. 
It  will  be  recalled  how  Mrs.  Andrew’s  letter  to  me  expressed 
the  views  of  Miss  Mary  Brodrick,  Ph.D.,  Prof.  Sayce  and 
Somers  Clarke  (all  members  of  the  Comm.),  whom  she  met  in 
Egypt,  that  “much  reform  was  needed  in  the  management  of 
society  matters.”  Dr.  Brodrick,  now  the  first  woman  Egyptol- 
ogist in  England,  editor  of  Murray’s  “Hand-books  for  Egypt,” 
Brugsch’s  “Egypt,”  etc.,  resigned  her  local  Secretaryship 
in  London  because,  as  she  wrote,  “ I did  not  approve  of  pres- 
ent management  in  England.”  At  my  earnest  request,  she 
allowed  her  name  to  stand  as  representing  the  “Boston 
Office  ” on  the  Comm.  The  Egyptological  department  of 
the  British  Museum  has  never  been  represented  upon  the 
Comm.,  which  means  that  Dr.  Birch,  the  famous  Egyptol- 
ogist, Dr.  Renouf,  the  great  grammarian,  and  now  E.  A. 
Budge,  Litt.D.,  LL.D.,  the  head  of  that  dept.,  and  known 
all  over  the  world  by  his  many  books,  have  not  been  con- 
nected with  the  Soc’y.  Nor  have  Rawlinson  and  several 
other  scholars  of  note  in  England  been  associated  with  the 
Committee.  I shall  not  quote  from  letters  to  me  from 
Petrie,  from  Miss  Edwards,  and  other  members  of  the  Comm., 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


163 


to  show  that  things  have  not  always  been  properly  managed. 
In  view  of  this  “mismanagement,”  Prof.  C.  C.  Stearns,  of 
Hartford,  wrote  to  me  last  February:  “There  must  be  some 
coward  at  London  headquarters,  or  some  duplicity  mislead- 
ing the  highest  authorities.”  So,  too,  Mrs.  Andrews  wrote 
from  Newport  to  Miss  Dennison  regarding  myself:  “It  seems 
to  me  there  must  have  been  some  influence  exercised  against 
him  (myself)  from  this  side  — covert  and  unfair.”  I think 
I have  shown  just  where  such  duplicity  in  London  exists, 
and  from  whom  “a  covert  and  unfair”  influence  proceeded 
in  Boston.  Call  it  in  London  “diplomacy,”  if  you  please, 
but  as  described  in  these  pages,  it  does  not  belong  to  a learned 
body.  Nor  do  I believe  the  true  Englishman  approves  of  it. 
I am  sure  that  journals  like  the  Athenaeum,  Spectator,  Saturday 
Review,  Times,  News,  Chronicle,  Globe,  etc.,  and,  of  course,  the 
religious  press,  will  agree  with  me  that  “ diplomacy  ” has  no 
place  in  the  governing  body  of  an  archaeological  society. 

What  is  the  remedy?  Let  the  Society  place  upon  the 
Committee,  so  far  as  possible,  those  who  know  something 
of  the  subject,  and  always  those  who  are  interested.  Let 
such  attend  the  meetings.  Let  no  more  “mismanagements,” 
such  as  that  connected  with  the  “Pittsburg  Branch,”  be 
allowed  to  be  “engineered  through.”  Let  Mr.  Cotton  resign; 
and  let  frankness  and  open  dealing  characterize  every  plan 
or  movement,  every  letter  written,  and  every  Annual  Report 
published.  Let  assurances  to  American  subscribers  be  kept. 
And  those  wholesome,  kind,  wise  words  of  Miss  Edwards, 
which  she  so  generously  applied  to  me,  but  I do  not  merit, 
may  still  be  realized: 

“Miss  Edwards  ventured  to  think  that  by  Dr.  Winslow’s 
aid  a great  and  noble  friendship  had  been  promoted  and 
cemented  between  the  elite  of  Transatlantic  and  British  schol- 
ars; a friendship  which  had  its  root  in  their  common  love  of 
truth,  and  their  desire  for  the  advancement  of  learning,  and 
which  was  independent  of  the  errors  of  creeds  and  the  vari- 
able atmosphere  of  politics.” 

II.  The  Boston  Committee.  Here  I prefer  that  readers 
may  chiefly  draw  their  own  “ conclusions.” 


164 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


(1)  The  conclusions  of  many  subscribers  are  that  this 

Committee  is  a self-constituted  body.  Rev.  Charles  E. 
Moldenke,  Ph.D.,  the  accomplished  Egyptologist,  wrote  to 
me:  “It  appears  as  though  the  Comm,  was  entirely ‘self- 

constituted.’  ” Prof.  Merrill,  of  Wesleyan  University,  wrote 
to  the  Boston  Office:  “The  circumstances  of  your  Commit- 
tee’s assumption  of  office  . . . appear  to  me  extraordinary.” 

(2)  Mr.  Robinson,  who  formed  this  Comm.,  did  not  deal 
frankly  with  me.  The  truth  was  kept  from  me.  He  fol- 
lowed the  counsels  of  one  or  two  men,  who  were  hostile  to  me. 
No  only  had  he,  personally  at  least,  not  the  least  thing  against 
me,  but  his  Museum  owed  me  much.  He  cannot  name  one 
other  person  who  has  given  of  himself,  without  money,  so 
much  for  that  institution.  He  not  only  was  not  frank,  he 
was  most  ungenerous.  He  overlooked  the  golden  rule. 

(3)  Another  conclusion  is  that  Messrs.  Lothrop  and  Davis 
knew  that  I had  been  most  unfairly  placed  by  the  policy  of 
the  London  Comm.,  and,  consequently,  had  to  contend  with 
an  impossible  situation.  Mr.  Lodge  soon  found  how  hard,  as 
Hon.  Sec’y,  it  was  to  deal  with  such  an  Hon.  Treas.,  and  Mr. 
Lythgoe  thoroughly  knows  how  well  he  will  reap  the  fruits 
of  my  toil.  Prof.  Goodwin,  too,  knows  enough  — at  least 
now  — of  the  extraordinary  difficulties  under  which  I con- 
ducted affairs.  Under  his  wide  mantle  of  fame  the  Comm, 
expect  to  appeal  for  aid.  Dr.  Moldenke  also  remarked: 
“ Among  the  names  attached  to  the  circular  I only  recognize 
that  of  Prof.  Goodwin.” 

(4)  It  is  certain,  too,  that  the  Boston  Comm,  must  know 
of  the  great  dissatisfaction  existing  throughout  the  American 
Branch.  I am  unwilling  to  believe  that  the  slang-adage, 

- “We  hold  the  fort  — What  are  you  going  to  do  about  it?  ” 
is  the  motto  of  their  intrenchment.  When  a veteran  sub- 
scriber, like  Rev.  Dr.  Morgan  Dix  of  New  York,  always  a 
staunch  supporter,  a careful  man,  writes  that  he  is  “much 
displeased,”  and  stops  his  subscription,  it  is  significant. 

III.  The  American  Subscribers.  Those  of  them  who 
read  these  pages  through  will  need  no  “conclusions”  from 
me  for  them.  The  subscribers  are  my  jury.  If  I have  their 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


165 


sympathy,  their  respect,  their  approval,  the  moral  victory 
is  mine.  “Everything  should  be  made  known  to  American 
subscribers,”  wrote  one  of  the  best  of  them.  “Keep  nothing 
back,”  wrote  another.  This  could  not  be;  but,  enough  has 
been  made  known  for  them  to  know  how  subscribers,  local 
Secretaries,  and  myself  have  all  been  unjustly  treated.  The 
Rev.  William  Short,  D.D.,  of  St.  Louis,  President  of  the 
Standing  Committee  in  that  diocese,  includes  more  than  sub- 
scribers : “ The  American  mind  believes  in  fair  play,  and  its 

verdict  will  be  that  you  have  not  been  treated  fairly.”  The 
American  Branch  has  not  been  “ treated  fairly  ” by  either 
the  London  or  Boston  Committees. 

IV.  Regarding  myself  as  Honorary  Secretary.  “I  hope 
you  will  maintain  your  rights  and  privileges  at  all  hazards,” 
wrote  Mr.  H.  C.  Rowley,  local  Sec’y  at  Springfield,  in  view 
of  my  appeal  to  London  in  1902,  to  sustain  my  authority  in 
the  Boston  Office.  But  the  Hon.  Sec’y  (Cotton)  and  a few 
others  did  not  mean  to  carry  out  the  resolution  defining  my 
powers,  and  they  called  the  lawless  actions  of  the  paid  Sec’y, 
abetted  by  the  Hon.  Treasurer,  “friction.”  The  power  for 
good  or  evil  of  an  Hon.  Sec’y  in  an  English  Soc’y  is  immense. 
The  official  correspondence  is  in  his  hands.  He  is  as  a mouth- 
piece of  the  Committee  to  branches  and  affiliated  bodies. 
He  can  tincture  or  color  whichever  way  his  inclination  tends, 
in  his  communications.  A splendid  Hon.  Sec’y,  like  Amelia 
B.  Edwards,  is  a splendid  power  for  good.  An  Hon.  Sec’y, 
altogether  diplomatic  and  unscrupulous  in  many  ways,  is  the 
opposite.  Cotton  claims  to  have  drawn  up  the  resolutions 
defining  the  status  of  the  Hon.  Sec’y,  Hon.  Treas.,  and  Sec’y. 
In  them  it  is  stated  that  the  Sec’y  in  the  Boston  Office  shall 
correspond  with  the  Hon.  Sec’y  and  Sec’y  in  London.  It  is 
not  stated  that  the  Hon.  Sec’y  here  shall  correspond  with 
the  Hon.  Sec’y  there.  “He  shall  communicate  with  the 
Committee.”  The  Hon.  Treas.  here  is  to  “communicate” 
with  the  Hon.  Treas.  there.  Why  this  reversal  of  custom 
regarding  myself?  this  making  the  paid  Sec’y  of  the  Boston 
Office  the  official  correspondent  of  the  London  Honorary 
Sec’y?  Because  of  the  understanding  between  Cotton  and 


166 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


the  Sec’y  when  he  was  here,  and  to  enable  them  to  correspond 
constantly,  which  they  did.  “Cotton  gives  me  the  right,” 
one  of  her  letters  says,  and  this  was  constantly  her  cry. 
It  has  appeared  that  my  administration  has  encountered 
an  unscrupulous  Hon.  Sec’y  in  England,  and  has  been 
hampered  by  a weak  and  meddlesome  Hon.  Treasurer  here 
since  May,  1897.  When  I stated  to  a careful  man  what  Fos- 
ter read  to  me  at  my  interview  with  him  on  Dec.  14,  1901 
(see  “The  Outbreak,”),  and  said:  “What  do  you  think  of 
that?”  he  replied,  “I  should  think  Mr.  Foster  was  losing 
his  mind.”  This  gentleman  is  Samuel  S.  Shaw  of  Boston, 
a lawyer,  son  of  the  late  Chief  Justice  Lemuel  Shaw. 

Here  are  three  representative  opinions,  that  of  an  eminent 
Harvard  man,  that  of  the  eminent  Babylonian  explorer,  that 
of  the  late  Moderator  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  General 
Assembly : 

Prof.  Charles  Eliot  Norton,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.:  If  new  arrange- 

ments were  to  be  made  you  had  the  right  to  the  ordering  of  them,  for 
the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  would  hardly  have  had  existence  in 
America  but  for  your  energy  and  devotion.  You  have  practically 
been  the  Fund,  and  every  one  interested  in  the  progress  of  exploration 
in  Egypt  must  be  grateful  to  you  for  what  you  have  done  to  promote 
it.  I hope  that  justice  may  yet  be  done  to  your  unremitting  zeal  in 
the  work  which  has  been  yours  for  so  many  years,  and  that  in  the 
reorganization  of  the  Fund  you  may  have  the  foremost  position, 
which  belongs  to  you. 

John  P.  Peters,  Sc.D.,  Ph.D.,  D.D.:  As  one  of  the  subscribers 
to  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund,  and  one  who  is,  perhaps,  somewhat 
more  interested  than  most  others,  since  I had  myself  the  good  fortune 
to  be  the  Director  of  the  American  Expedition  to  Babylonia,  I write 
to  you  (the  London  Comm.)  to  protest  against  the  action  of  your 
Committee  with  regard  to  Dr.  Winslow  and  the  American  subscribers- 

That  the  American  subscribers  have  been  so  numerous,  and  that  the 
interest  in  this  exploration- is  so  widespread  in  America,  is  entirely  due 
to  Dr.  Winslow’s  efforts.  I believe  that  all  of  us  who  are  subscribers 
to  this  Fund  have  the  completest  confidence  in  him.  . . . We  believe 
that  we  have  a right  to  some  word  with  reference  to  our  organization. 

Herrick  Johnson,  D.D.,  LL.D.:  Mrs.  Johnson  has  already  voiced 
my  sense  of  the  injustice  done  you.  . . . Dr.  Winslow  and  the  Egypt 
Exploration  Fund  are  virtually  inseparable  in  my  own  mind.  . . • 
The  Executive  Committee  as  constituted  would  better  go  into  a state 
of  “ innocuous  desuetude.”  The  only  road  to  “right  ” is  right. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


167 


The  foregoing  views  apply  even  more  to  the  reorganization 
of  1902.  This  brochure  has  aimed  to  present  the  views  of 
every  class  of  subscribers.  My  aim  has  been  to  be  just  and 
to  be  impartial.  To  no  one  I feel  personal  animosity  in  the 
least.  With  Dr.  Miller,  already  quoted,  I exclaim,  “Can 
such  things  be  possible?  ” Concerning  the  action  in  London, 
let  the  words  of  Dr.  Zimmerman  stand:  “Such  base  injustice 
and  gross  ingratitude  are  exasperating.”  But  I am  only 
indignant,  and  sorry  that  so  true  a story  has  had  to  be  told. 
On  only  one  point  does  my  conscience  vex  me  — I ought  to 
have  resigned  all  official  connection  with  the  Boston  Office 
in  1898.  I sacrificed  myself  beyond  what  duty  calls  upon 
any  man  to  sacrifice  himself  to  any  cause.  I purposed  on 
rounding  out  20  years’  of  service  in  November,  1903,  to  retire 
from  all  responsibility,  retaining  only  my  honorary  post  of 
Vice  President.  But,  among  our  conclusions,  is  one  that 
Cotton,  Foster  and  Robinson  favored  “a  clean  sweep,”  after 
the  two  former  saw  that  the  Secretary  must  go  ; and  the 
London  Committee  said  “go  ” to  my  position  of  honor.  Had 
we  had  a proper  Sec’y,  I would  have  asked  for  another  Hon. 
Sec’y  to  be  appointed  several  years  ago.  The  London  Comm, 
knew  that  I had  done  my  essential  work  — and  this  affected 
their  action  not  a little. 

My  last  conclusions  (respecting  myself)  relate  to  the  press. 
The  regular  correspondents  of  the  three  most  widely  circu- 
lated journals  of  the  Episcopal  Church  called  upon  me.  Each 
carefully  read  data  and  evidence  in  my  hands,  and  each  ex- 
pressed himself  convinced.  Their  criticisms  upon  the  Lon- 
don Comm.,  I shall  not  repeat.  The  Editor  of  the  Living 
Church  wrote  to  me : “ I am  sorry  indeed  to  learn  how  grave 
have  been  the  matters  that  went  before  the  sudden  revolu- 
tion in  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund,  and  think  on  the  whole 
that  you  may  be  congratulated  on  being  out  of  it.  I hope, 
however,  that  there  may  again  be  another  revolution  which 
will  have  the  effect  of  placing  the  whole  matter  upon  its 
merits.  ...  I am  very  sure  that  at  least  in  this  country 
you  need  no  vindication.”  (F.  C.  Morehouse,  Editor.) 

Rev.  Edward  T.  Sullivan  of  Newton  Centre,  Mass., 


168 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


Editor  of  The  Church  Militant,  wrote  to  me  : “ ...  If  it  were 
not  for  the  shameful  manner  in  which  it  was  done,  I should 
say  that  you  were  well  out  of  it.  The  method  of  it  will  cost 
the  Society  subscribers,  I am  sure,  and  it  serves  it  right. 
But  your  conscience  is  all  right  — and  theirs  cannot  be.” 

Other  editors  who  knew  something  of  the  “ revolution  ” 
wrote  to  me: 

Rev.  A.  E.  Dunning,  D.D.,  Editor  of  The  Congregation- 
alist : “ . . .You  have  my  sympathy,  and  also  my  congrat- 
ulations that  you  have  got  out  of  official  relations  with  an 
organization  which  has  such  a load  to  carry  as  this  one  has.” 

Rev.  W.  Hayes  Ward,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Editor  of  the  Inde- 
pendent: “I  am  surprised  after  all  you  have  done  that  you 
have  been  treated  so  cavalierly.  The  new  Comm,  ought  to 
be  national,  not  local,”  etc. 

For  the  growth  and  prosperity  of  the  American  Branch  I 
owe  an  unpayable  debt  to  the  press.  I cannot  particularize 
the  New  York  and  other  dailies,  for  the  list  is  too  long.  They 
have  generously  grasped  the  situation  and  aided,  even  when 
sometimes  I was  perhaps  importunate  and  over-enthusiastic. 
I deeply  appreciate  their  indispensable  services;  and  one  of 
the  strong  evidences  of  the  hold  archeology  now  has  upon 
the  intelligent  public  is  seen  in  the  publication,  oftentimes 
conspicuous,  of  the  news  of  fresh  “finds  ” in  the  great  dailies 
whose  colossal  editions  are  read  by  millions  of  people. 

William  Copley  Winslow. 

525  Beacon  Street,  Boston, 

July  1,  1903. 

Note. 

The  correspondent  of  The  Church  Standard,  Philadelphia,  called  to 
inquire  concerning  the  “revolution.”  He  became  much  interested. 
He  came  again  and  devoted  more  time  to  reading  the  papers  in  my 
hands.  He  was  deeply  impressed.  Urged  by  many  to  allow  an 
account  of  my  life  to  appear,  with  a likeness,  I yielded.  This  corre- 
spondent, Rev.  A.  E.  George  of  Walpole,  Mass.,  kindly  rec’d  some 
data,  already  published  in  one  or  two  magazines,  reports,  etc.,  etc., 
and  made  the  sketch  which  follows  this  long  story  about  the  Fund. 

w.  c.  w. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


169 


THE  REQUEST  OF  THE  LOCAL  SECRETARIES 
TO  THE  LONDON  COMMITTEE. 


There  were  about  ninety  local  Honorary  Secretaries  for 
the  United  States  when  the  new  Committee  was  formed  by 
Mr.  Robinson  in  October,  1902.  They  constituted  in  every 
sense  a thoroughly  representative  body.  Their  views  con- 
cerning all  matters  pertaining  to  the  American  Branch  were 
entitled  to  the  highest  consideration.  A request  officially 
from  them  to  the  Comm,  should  receive  approval,  and  if  not, 
clear  and  decisive  reasons  for  rejecting  such  request  should 
be  given.  To  treat  lightly  any  such  request  would  be  dis- 
respectful to  the  Secretaries,  unjust  to  American  subscribers, 
and  would  be  breaking  the  pledges  of  the  London  Committee, 
orbits  officials,  that  their  one  aim  in  dealing  with  the  Ameri- 
can Branch  is  to  meet  the  views  of  American  subscribers. 
These  local  Secretaries  represented  the  Society  from  Boston 
to  San  Francisco. 

The  circular  of  the  new  Comm,  last  November  caused 
indignation  in  many  quarters,  and  was  generally  a great 
surprise  to  the  subscribers.  When  some  of  the  Secretaries 
learned  how  I had  been  relieved  of  my  office  of  V.  P.,  they 
conferred  together,  and  Gen.  Charles  W.  Darling,  of  Utica, 
sent  to  the  local  Secretaries  a request  for  them  to  sign.  The 
following  action  by  him  and  them  tell  their  own  story: 

To  the  President  and  Committee  of  the  Egypt  Exploration 
Fund,  London,  England: 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  — Many  of  the  local  Honorary  Secretaries  in 
the  United  States  expressed  dissatisfaction  with  the  removal  of  the 
Rev.  Dr.  William  Copley  Winslow  from  both  his  offices,  and  some  of 
them  wishing  that  steps  be  taken  to  repair  so  disastrous  a blow  to  the 
welfare  of  the  American  Branch,  I have,  by  request,  sent  to  the  Sec- 


170 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


retaries  a petition,  signed  by  them,  as  given  below,  and  I hereby 
certify  that  the  names  affixed  are  duly  authorized  by  the  respective 
Secretaries  over  their  signatures  sent  by  them  individually  to  me. 

In  their  behalf,  representing  as  they  do  the  entire  American  Branch, 
in  various  sections  of  the  land,  I urgently  and  respectfully  request 
your  prompt  action  upon  the  Petition. 

Charles  W.  Darling, 
Local  Hon.  Sec’y  for  Utica,  N.  Y. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Rev.  Dr.  William  Copley  Winslow  is  retired  from 
all  active  and  responsible  duties  connected  with  the  Egypt  Explora- 
tion, We,  the ’undersigned,  Local  Honorary  Secretaries  in  the'United 
States,  do  respectfully  and  earnestly  request  that  he  be  at  once 
appointed  Honorary  Vice  President  for  the  United  States. 

William  W.  Adams,  D.D.,  Trustee  of  Williams  College. 

Mrs.  Ames,  wife  of  James  B.  Ames,  LL.D.,  head  of  Harvard  Uni- 
versity Law  School. 

Prof.  W.  J.  Battle,  Ph.D.,  Texas  University. 

Prof.  Wt.  J.  Beecher,  D.D.,  Auburn  Theol.  Seminary. 

Hon.  James  P.  Baxter,  LL.D.,  President  of  the  New  England 
Historic-Genealogical  Soc’y,  and  of  the  Maine  Historical  Soc’y. 

President  F.  D.  Blakeslee,  D.D.,  Cazenovia  Seminary,  N.  Y. 

Prof.  T.  Q.  Browne,  Morristown  School  (N.  J.). 

Hon.  E.  R.  Burpee,  Bangor. 

Major-Gen.  J.  L.  Chamberlain,  LL.D.,  ex-Governor  of  Maine 
Portland. 

Miss  Sybil  Carter,  Deaconess  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  New  York 
City. 

Archdeacon  A.  St.  John  Chambre,  D.D.,  Lowell,  Mass. 

Eckley  Brinton  Coxe,  Jr.,  Esq.,  Philadelphia. 

Camden  S.  Cobern,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Chicago. 

Hon.  Charles  H.  S.  Davis,  M.D.,  Ph.D.,  Editor  of  Biblia, 
Meriden,  Conn. 

Gen.  Charles  W.  Darling,  Corresponding  Sec’y,  Oneida  Histori- 
cal Soc’y,  Utica. 

Prof.  John  D.  Davis,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Princeton  University. 

James  T.  Dennis,  M.A.,  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

Mrs.  Gen.  John  H.  Devereux,  Cleveland. 

Mrs.  Henry  P.  Emerson,  Lynn. 

Mrs.  Winsor  B.  French,  Saratoga. 

Edgar  Allen  Forbes,  Ph.D.,  Southern  Baptist  Theol.  Seminary. 

Rev.  Daniel  Goodwin,  Ph.D.,  East  Greenwich,  R.  I. 

Miss  Emma  C.  Grafflin,  Baltimore. 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


171 


Mrs.  Hoffman,  widow  of  Very  Rev.  E.  A.  Hoffman,  D.D.  (Oxon.), 
D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  New  York  City. 

Prof.  James  M.  Hoppin,  D.D.,  Yale  University. 

David  Harlowe,  Esq.,  Milwaukee. 

Edward  Herbruck,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Dayton,  Ohio. 

Prof.  Samuel  Hart,  D.D.,  D.C.L.,  Berkeley  Divinity  School, 
Middletown,  Conn. 

Francis  A.  Horton,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Sec’y,  etc.,  Philadelphia. 
Robert  J.  Hubbard,  Esq.,  Cazenovia,  N.  Y. 

Mrs.  Stephen  G.  Hubbell,  Los  Angeles. 

Mrs.  William  H.  Hanchett,  Omaha. 

Timothy  Hopkins,  Esq.,  Trustee  of  Stanford  University,  Cali- 
fornia. 

Mrs.  Johnson,  wife  of  Herrick  Johnson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  ex-Moder- 
ator  General  Assembly  of  Presbyterian  Church. 

William  G.  Johnston,  Esq.,  Watertown,  N.  Y. 

Charles  A.  Jessup,  D.D.,  Greenport,  N.  Y. 

J.  E.  Kittredge,  D.D.,  Geneseo,  N.  Y. 

Renwick  B.  Knox,  Esq.,  Duluth,  Minn. 

Prof.  C.  Leidich,  Ph.D.,  Detroit. 

Mrs.  Donald  Y.  Leslie,  Buffalo. 

Rt.  Rev.  Cameron  Mann,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  North  Dakota. 
James  Morrow,  D.D.,  Gen.  Sec’y  Bible  Soc’y,  Philadelphia. 

D.  L.  Miller,  D.D.,  Editor  and  Author,  Mount  Morris,  111. 

Charles  L.  Myers,  Esq.,  Jersey  City. 

Prof.  Elmer  T.  Merrill,  Ph.D.,  Wesleyan  University,  Middle- 
town. 

Rev.  J.  C.  Nevin,  Ph.D.,  Los  Angeles. 

S.  M.  Newman,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Washington. 

Hon.  Thomas  M.  Owen,  LL.D.,  historian,  Montgomery,  Ala. 

Prof.  Walter  S.  Perry,  Brooklyn. 

Prof.  George  H.  Perkins,  Sc.D.,  University  of  Vermont. 

Charles  Ray  Palmer,  D.D.,  Trustee  Yale  University;  President 
Connecticut  Branch,  E.  E.  F. 

Mrs.  Charles  B.  Potter,  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

Prof.  John  P.  Peters,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York  City. 

Prof.  M.  B.  Riddle,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Western  Theol.  Seminary. 

H.  Curtis  Rowley,  Esq.,  Publisher  Webster’s  Dictionary,  Spring- 
field,  Mass. 

Prof.  F.  S.  Riley,  Ph.D.,  University  of  Mississippi. 

Hon.  John  E.  Russell,  LL.D.,  ex  M.  C.,  Leicester,  Mass. 

A.  P.  Schauffler,  D.D.,  Sup’t  City  Missions,  New  York  City. 

Prof.  Charles  C.  Stearns,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Edward  B.  Sturges,  Esq.,  Scranton,  Penn. 


172 


THE  TRUTH  ABOUT 


William  Short,  D.D.,  Rector,  St.  Louis. 

James  S.  Stone,  D.D.,  Rector,  Chicago. 

Miss  Mary  A.  Sharpe,  Wilkes-Barre. 

The  late  Rt.  Rev.  F.  W.  Taylor,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Quincy. 

C.  M.  Taintor,  Esq.,  Southport,  Conn. 

Prof.  Charles  M.  Tyler,  D.D.,  Cornell  University. 

Mrs.  Harvey  L.  Van  Nuys,  Goshen,  Ind. 

Prof.  F.  E.  Woodruff.  Ph.D.,  Bowdoin  College. 

Mrs.  Levi  C.  Wade,  Newton  Centre,  Mass. 

Prof.  E.  H.  Williams,  Andover,  Mass. 

Archdeacon  R.  P.  Williams,  Washington,  D.  C. 

James  R.  Winchester,  D.D.,  Rector,  St.  Louis. 

John  Wright,  D.D.,  Rector,  St.  Paul. 

Prof.  Irving  F.  Wood,  Smith  College,  Northampton,  Mass. 

Rev.  Charles  James  Wood,  Rector,  York,  Penn. 

Frank  Waller,  Esq.,  Morristown,  N.  J. 

Mrs.  Charles  E.  Wilbour,  New  York  City. 

Jeremiah  Zimmerman,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

There  were  received  83  replies  by  Gen.  Darling.  Of  the 
five  who  did  not  sign  the  request,  one  did  not  renew  his  sub- 
scription; one  has  not  as  yet;  two,  out  of  regard  for  Prof. 
Goodwin,  did  not  sign.  Another  wrote  to  Darling:  “Dr. 
Winslow’s  services  to  the  Fund  have  been  so  great  that  the 
London  Committee  will  in  all  probability  make  some  recog- 
nition of  it.”  He  wrote  to  me:  “I  should  think  it  might 
naturally  occur  to  them  to  recognize  in  some  way  your  great 
services,  and  this  I believe  they  should  be  free  to  do  in  what- 
ever way  they  think  best.” 

Four  of  the  Secretaries  were  known  to  be  abroad;  and  from 
three  (perhaps  also  absent)  no  reply  came.  Of  the  former 
were  Mrs.  Howard  Crosby,  and  Mr.  Phipps  whose  decisive 
views  are  found  elsewhere  in  this  brochure. 

Gen.  Darling  in  January,  1903,  sent  out  a typewritten  note 
to  the  Secretaries  announcing  that  almost  en  masse  the  re- 
quest was  signed;  adding:  “Let  us  earnestly  hope  that  the 
above  request  will  be  granted,  and  that  our  English  friends, 
with  Sir  John  Evans  at  the  head,  will  see  to  it  that  the  Ameri- 
can Branch  will  be  administered  in  accordance  with  the 
wishes  of  American  subscribers,  as  is  assured  by  the  London 
Committee  in  one  of  its  reports.” 


THE  EGYPT  EXPLORATION  FUND. 


173 


But  those  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  London  Committee 
in  January  returned  an  evasive  answer  to  Darling  that  in 
their  opinion  a Vice  President  should  not  at  present  be  ap- 
pointed. Perhaps  this  was  a diplomatic  way  to  “shelve” 
the  request : so  that  if  the  Committee  ever  felt  forced  to  make 
the  appointment,  it  could  be  taken  from  the  shelf.  A Boston 
paper  calling  attention  to  the  second  circular  of  the  Boston 
Committee,  remarked  that  “the  London  Committee  declines 
to  accede  to  the  petition  of  sundry  persons  in  this  country  to 
confer  upon  Rev.  Wm.  Copley  Winslow  ” this  Office,  etc. 
This  “ information,”  emanating  from  the  Boston  Committee’s 
office,  was  corrected  by  me  in  that  journal,  for  I could  not 
allow  such  a designation  to  be  given  to  my  associates  before 
the  Boston  public. 

w.  c.  w. 


174 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 

By  the  Rev.  ALBERT  E.  GEORGE. 


Since  the  foundation  of  the  American  Branch  of  the  Egypt 
Exploration  Fund  in  1883,  by  the  Rev.  William  Copley  Wins- 
low, he  has  devoted  his  best  energies  in  every  direction  to- 
wards the  promotion  of  the  highest  interests  of  the  Society, 
and  in  obtaining  money  for  its  work  of  discovery  and  publi- 
cation. His  valuable  services  ceased  in  1902,  when  the  Lon- 
don Committee  reorganized  the  administration  of  the  Ameri- 
can Branch.  For  nineteen  years  he  has  therefore  given  his 
time  mostly,  and  his  best  thought  towards  building  up  the 
Society  and  creating  a wide  interest  in  the  cause.  He  was 
among  the  first  to  interest  the  American  public  in  archaeol- 
ogy, and  the  first  in  calling  its  attention  to  exploration  in 
Egypt.  At  all  times  he  has  been  found  ready  to  speak  or 
write  in  behalf  of  these  interests,  and  labored  unceasingly  in 
obtaining  the  funds  to  bring  about  present  results. 

As  early  as  1885,  Mr.  Gilbertson,  then  honorary  treasurer, 
made  this  statement  at  the  annual  meeting:  “I  have  had 
opportunities  of  seeing  with  mingled  surprise  and  anxiety, 
what  great,  I might  almost  say  unreasonable  sacrifice  of  time 
and  labor  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  fund,  have  been 
made  by  the  Hon.  Secretaries,  Miss  Edwards  and  Mr.  Poole, 
and  by  the  Honorary  Treasurer  in  America,  Dr.  Winslow. 
Looking  at  the  question  merely  from  an  accountant’s 
point  of  view,  I cannot  but  consider  them  as  by  far  the 
largest  contributors  to  our  finances.”  These  amounts  were 
raised,  and  mentioned  in  the  annual  report:  Miss  Edwards 
£175;  Dr.  Poole  £288.15;  Dr.  Winslow  82,865.50,  the  last  net. 


WILLIAM  C WINSLOW  D D.  Ph  D LL  D. 

Founder  of  the  American  Branch  of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  in  1883. 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


175 


The  literary  side,  Miss  Amelia  B.  Edwards  referred  to  at  a 
meeting  of  the  Society  in  the  Royal  Institute,  July,  1886 : 

Miss  Edwards  then  went  on  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  meeting 
to  the  great  and  gratifying  support  which  the  Egypt  Exploration 
Fund  continued  to  receive  from  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.  . . . 
Among  the  learned  societies  represented  by  their  presidents  and  vice- 
presidents,  as  contributors  to  this  fund,  were  the  American  Oriental 
Society,  the  Archaeological  Institute  of  America,  the  American  His- 
torical Association,  the  American  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences,  the 
American  Philological  Association,  the  New  England  Historical  So- 
ciety, the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  the  New  York  Historical 
Society,  the  Institute  of  Hebrew,  the  Institute  of  Christian  Philoso- 
phy, the  American  Metrological  Society,  and  the  Webster  Historical 
Society.  Turning  to  representatives  of  the  Church,  no  less  than 
thirty-nine  bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church  (including  the  Primate), 
and  seventy-eight  clergymen  of  various  denominations  were  sub- 
scribers to  the  work.  Of  presidents  of  colleges  and  professors  there 
were  no  less  than  108,  including  all  the  foremost  scholars  and  thinkers 
of  their  time;  while  of  eminent  statesmen,  magistrates,  scientists, 
authors,  and  other  men  of  mark,  there  were  about  160  more  entered 
in  the  last  list  issued  by  the  society's  eminent  and  zealous  vice-presi- 
dent, the  Rev.  Dr.  W.  C.  Winslow,  of  Boston.  Miss  Edwards  then 
dwelt  with  much  warmth  and  earnestness  upon  the  untiring  energy, 
devotion  and  enthusiasm  of  Dr.  Winslow,  to  whom  the  society  were 
indebted  for  this  unparalleled  accession  to  the  dignity  and  treasury  of 
the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund.  With  the  one  single  exception  of  the 
late  Sir  Erasmus  Wilson,  Dr.  Winslow  had  done  more  than  any  one, 
not  merely  for  the  work  of  this  society,  but  for  the  cause  of  Biblical 
research  and  the  spread  of  Biblical  knowledge  in  connection  with 
Egyptology  throughout  the  civilized  world.  Miss  Edwards  ven- 
tured to  think  that  by  Dr.  Winslow’s  aid  a great  and  noble  friendship 
had  been  promoted  and  cemented  between  the  elite  of  Transatlantic 
and  British  scholars;  a friendship  which  had  its  root  in  their  common 
love  of  truth  and  their  desire  for  the  advancement  of  learning,  and 
which  was  independent  of  the  wars  of  creeds  and  the  variable  atmos- 
phere of  politics. 

Prof.  R.  S.  Poole  also  spoke  in  the  same  emphatic  way 
upon  the  labors  of  Dr.  Winslow.  When  the  latter  nominated 
George  William  Curtis  to  succeed  James  Russell  Lowell,  and 
then  afterwards  in  succession,  Charles  Dudley  Warner,  as 
honorary  Vice  Presidents,  the  London  Committee  deferred 


176 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


to  his  wisdom  and  judgment.  His  proposition  for  Chicago  to 
have  its  own  vice  president,  found  the  Committee  willing 
to  acknowledge  the  nomination  of  Messrs.  Mason  and  Hutch- 
inson, respectively,  for  that  place,  and  then  for  Canada,  Dr. 
Bourinot  and  Sir  J.  W.  Dawson  in  turn.  This  was  also  recog- 
nized in  his  appointment  of  local  honorary  secretaries  in  the 
United  States.  His  thorough  understanding  of  the  status 
of  the  Fund,  and  the  ways  and  means  of  encouraging  financial 
support  either  in  general  affairs,  or  in  varied  details,  was 
very  helpful,  and  appreciated  by  the  Committee. 

To  look  over  the  annual  reports  from  1883  to  1902,  one 
sees  at  a glance  the  remarkable  growth  of  the  Fund  and  what 
testimony  they  bear  to  his  intelligent  zeal  and  keen  enthusi- 
asm for  the  cause.  The  report  for  1901  gives  the  sum  of 
$12,500,  all  raised  through  the  Boston  office. 

The  magazine  Biblla  for  May,  1896,  edited  by  Dr.  C. 
H.  S Davis,  of  Meriden,  Conn.,  contains  the  following  edi- 
torial : 

The  Reports  themselves  best  testify  to  the  prosperous  evolution  of 
the  Society,  on  our  soil,  in  the  interest  it  has  awakened  in  discoveries 
in  Egypt,  and  in  their  prosecution,  and  in  the  testimony  afforded,  not 
only  in  the  splendid  array  of  some  five  hundred  names  of  eminent 
men  and  women,  who  have  been  enrolled  on  the  subscription  list,  but 
in  their  words  of  hearty  commendation.  There  comes  to  mind,  how- 
ever, here  and  now,  the  words  applied  so  truly  by  Dr.  Winslow  to  his 
loved  associate,  now  sorely  missed  from  the  council  of  the  field  of 
action:  “The  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  owTes  an  unpayable  debt  to 
Miss  Edwards;  that  debt  is  now  due,  will  be  ever  due,  to  her  memory." 

Let  us  now  glance  at  his  career. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  William  Copley  Winslow  was  born  in  Bos- 
ton on  Jan.  13,  1840.  He  is  the  second  son  of  the  Rev. 
Hubbard  Winslow,  D.D.,  the  successor  of  Dr.  Lyman  Beecher, 
once  pastor  of  the  famous  Bowdoin  Street  Church.  Here 
it  was  that  Lowell  Mason  was  conductor  of  the  choir,  and 
composed  his  best  selections  of  music.  * Dr.  Winslow  is  in 
the  seventh  generation  from  Kenelm  Winslow,  brother  of 


* “America”  was  sung^rsi  by  Mr.  Winslow’s  Sunday-school. 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


177 


Governor  Edward  Winslow.  On  his  mother’s  side,  he  is 
descended  from  the  Colmans  and  Pembertons  of  Colonial 
days  in  Boston.  Preparing  for  college  at  the  Latin  school, 
he  naturally  would  have  entered  Harvard  or  Yale  (his  father’s 
college),  but  as  his  father  was  then  pastor  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  Geneva,  N.  Y.,  he  concluded  to  enter  Hamil- 
ton College,  Clinton,  N.  Y.,  and  was  graduated  in  1862,  the 
semi-centenary  of  that  institution.  It  is  a coincidence  to 
note  that  Dr.  Charles  Dudley  Warner,  ’51,  and  Dr.  Winslow, 
both  officials  of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund,  received  hon- 
orary degrees  from  this  college  in  1886. 

While  in  college,  Mr.  Winslow  showed  an  inclination  to- 
wards literary  pursuits,  and  aided  Joseph  Cook,  and  W.  G. 
Sumner,  of  Yale,  in  founding  the  University  Quarterly 
Review,  of  which  he  was  an  associate  editor  for  some  time. 
His  connection  with  the  Hamiltonian  as  editor,  and  his 
preparation  of  the  college  catalogue  known  as  the  student’s 
edition,  and  several  other  literary  ventures,  marked  his 
career  as  one  likely  to  devote  his  future  usefulness  to  literary 
work. 

Passing  through  a period  of  doubt  over  his  calling  in  life, 
pressure  was  brought  to  bear  upon  him  to  be  an  editor.  He 
had  a strong  inclination  to  be  a clergyman.  So  many  of  his 
friends  considered  him  well  adapted  for  literary  work  that 
he  concluded  for  a time  to  yield  to  their  desires,  and,  with  a 
letter  to  William  Cullen  Bryant  from  Edward  Everett,  he 
was  promised  a position  upon  the  Evening  Post.  He 
accepted,  however,  for  a short  time  a position  upon  the 
World,  then  doing  its  best  literary  work.  During  that 
winter,  the  old  inclination  to  enter  the  ministry  revived,  and 
he  concluded  to  become  a student  at  the  General  Theological 
Seminary  in  New  York  City,  which  he  did  in  1863.  He 
edited  the  Christian  Times  with  Dr.  Tyng  during  a portion 
of  his  seminary  days,  and  upon  his  graduation,  in  1865,  he 
temporarily  officiated  at  the  Wainwright  Memorial  Church, 
and  was  asked  to  deliver  a commemorative  sermon  upon  the 
late  rector,  the  Rev.  E.  R.  T.  Cook,fand  a Thanksgiving  ser- 
mon, which  were  published.  Needing  some  rest,  and  de- 


178 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


siring  to  study  in  Italy,  he  spent  four  or  five  months  there  in 
the  study  of  archaeology,  and  upon  his  return  to  this  country 
lectured  upon  this  topic.  From  June,  1867,  to  October,  1870, 
he  was  rector  of  St.  George’s  Church,  Lee,  Mass.,  where  he 
labored  as  Chairman  of  the  School  Committee  in  the  town, 
and  was  twice  honored  with  the  position  of  orator  upon 
Decoration  Day.  The  Adirondacks  became  an  interesting 
subject  to  him  during  his  summer  vacations,  and  he  aided 
to  prepare  charts  and  maps  upon  this  then  unfrequented 
locality.  His  last,  and  twenty-sixth  trip  to  the  Adirondacks, 
was  made  in  October,  1892,  and  a year  previous  to  this  he 
camped  on  Mt.  Adams,  in  mid-October,  and  explored  in  New 
Hampshire  the  “Presidential  Range.”  Part  of  the  year 
1892  he  spent  in  New  Hampshire,  and  with  the  help  of  Prof. 
R.  Pumpelly  and  his  brother,  he  cut  a new  path  up  Mt. 
Monadnock  from  the  Dublin  side,  and,  six  years  later,  he 
spent  three  weeks  in  the  vicinity  of  Mt.  Kearsarge,  and  en- 
gaged in  recutting  a path  from  near  the  “Winslow  House  ” 
to  the  summit.  He  was  an  active  member  of  the  Appa- 
lachian Club,  Boston,  for  several  years. 

In  removing  to  Boston  in  1870,  after  his  rectorship  of  St. 
George’s  Church,  Lee,  he  has  since  devoted  much  of  his  time 
to  literary  pursuits.  He  gave  his  services  for  several  years 
as  Chaplain  of  St.  Luke’s  Home  for  Convalescents,  and 
has  advanced  the  interests  of  the  Free  Church  Association  in 
Massachusetts  in  his  position  as  Secretary  of  that  body.  His 
extensive  membership  in  historical  and  other  learned  soci- 
eties has  brought  him  in  touch  with  some  of  the  most  repre- 
sentative minds  in  this  country.  The  following  organizations 
and  societies  have  valued  his  services  as  an  officer  or  upon 
committees:  The  Webster  Historical  Society,  The  Institute 
of  Civics,  the  New  England  Historic-Genealogical  Society, 
the  Bostonian  Society,  and  the  Society  for  the  Promotion  of 
Good  Citizenship,  which  he  helped  to  form,  and  afterwards 
became  a director  in  the  same.  The  American  Statistical 
Association,  the  Economic  Society,  the  Archseological  Insti- 
tute of  America,  the  American  Oriental  Society,  and  other 
bodies  have  his  papers  in  their  Proceedings.  He  was  ap- 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


179 


pointed  upon  the  Committee  to  obtain  records  of  Oriental 
antiquities  sent  to  America  at  the  fiftieth  meeting  of  the 
American  Oriental  Society.  At  the  Chicago  Exposition, 
his  help  was  valued  in  the  department  of  history  and  phil- 
ology, and  also  his  papers  dealing  with  the  section  devoted 
to  Africa  were  well  received.  Upon  the  latter  topic,  he  read 
a paper  from  Naville. 

Some  of  the  societies  where  Dr.  Winslow  has  lectured 
have  placed  him  upon  their  honorary  rolls,  such  as  the 
Oneida  Historical  Society,  the  N.  Y.  Biographical  Society, 
the  Long  Island  Historical  Society,  the  New  Haven  Colony 
Historical  Society,  the  N.  Y.  Churchman’s  Association  and 
the  Danvers  Historical  Society.  He  is  honorary  member 
of  twenty-three  State  Historical  Societies,  including  five  of 
the  New  England  States.  In  Canada,  he  is  the  honorary 
correspondent  of  the  Natural  History  Society  of  Montreal, 
of  the  Nova  Scotia  and  Quebec  Historical  Societies.  In 
Great  Britain  he  is  honorary  fellow  of  the  Royal  Archaeologi- 
cal Institute;  corresponding  member  of  the  British  Archaeo- 
logical Association;  honorary  correspondent  of  the  Victoria 
Institute;  honorary  fellow  of  the  Society  of  Arts  and  Sciences, 
and  for  a number  of  years  was  fellow  of  the  Society  of  An- 
tiquaries, Edinburgh;  and  in  the  United  States,  correspond- 
ing member  of  the  Anthropological  Society  of  Washington. 
Dr.  Winslow  was  for  ten  years  Prelate  of  the  St.  Bernard 
Commandery  of  Knights  Templars  in  Boston. 

When  Dr.  Leemans  completed  his  fifty  years’  service  as 
director  of  the  Leyden  Museum,  the  invitation  was  extended 
to  Dr.  Winslow  to  contribute  an  article  to  the  splendid  pub- 
lished album  commemorating  the  event,  and  four  or  five 
other  writers  were  likewise  chosen  from  the  United  States 
to  perform  this  duty.  When  the  German  Government  pub- 
lished the  great  Book  of  the  Dead  in  three  costly  volumes, 
two  copies  were  presented  through  Naville,  their  editor,  the 
great  Egyptologist,  to  America;  one  going  to  the  American 
Oriental  Society,  and  the  other  to  Dr.  Winslow. 

In  consideration  of  his  varied  services  and  writings,  espe- 
cially in  archaeology  and  history,  the  following  universities 
and  colleges  have  conferred  degrees  upon  Dr.  Winslow : 


180 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


1.  St.  Andrews,  the  senior  university  of  Scotland,  LL.D., 
in  1886. 

2.  Amherst  College,  D.D.,  in  1887. 

3.  University  of  King’s  College,  D.C.L.,  in  1888. 

4.  Columbia  University,  at  its  centennial,  L.H.D. 

5.  St.  John’s  College,  Annapolis,  at  its  centennial,  Sc.D., 
“ in  recognition  of  the  learning  and  ability  with  which  he 
had  conducted  scientific  investigations.” 

6.  Griswold  College,  S.T.D.,  in  1889. 

7.  We  have  already  said  that  he  received  Ph.D.  from  his 
Alma  Mater,  Hamilton.  When  but  twenty-five  years  old 
he  received  Hon.  M.A.  from  Hobart  College  for  his  journal- 
istic work. 

In  1880  Mr.  Winslow’s  studies  led  him  to  visit  the  monu- 
ments and  sites  of  Egypt,  and  articles  soon  followed  upon 
these  important  matters.  When  the  discovery  of  Pithom 
(Ex.  1:11)  was  announced,  he  began  a correspondence  with 
Sir  Erasmus  Wilson  and  Amelia  B.  Edwards,  which  led  up 
to  his  founding  of  the  American  Branch  of  the  Egypt  Explor- 
ation Fund.  In  1883  he  became  honorary  treasurer  for 
America;  in  1885  its  vice  president,  and  in  1889,  the  honorary 
secretary,  the  same  position  which  Miss  Edwards  held  in 
England. 

Dr.  0.  W.  Holmes  wrote  him  that  graphic  and  witty  letter 
upon  exploration,  which  has  since  appeared  in  his  “Life 
and  Letters,”  and  J.  G.  Whittier  wrote  such  fresh  and  clever 
expressions  of  interest  in  Dr.  Winslow’s  work  that  his  letter 
may  be  found  in  his  published  correspondence.  In  1892  the 
subject  of  this  sketch  remarked  to  the  editor  of  Biblia 
regarding  his  literary  and  business  labors  for  the  Society, 
“that  so  far  as  toil  is  concerned  he  had  rather  fill  the  most 
laborious  professorship  in  Harvard  University  than  act  as 
the  representative  of  the  Society  and  Egyptological  interests 
in  this  country,  and  as  treasurer  of  the  Fund.”  For  probably 
a dozen  years  after  he  founded  the  American  Branch  Dr. 
Winslow  devoted  nearly  all  his  time  to  the  cause  in  order  to 
plant  firmly  the  Fund  and  make  “Egypt”  known  to  our 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


181 


people.  One  of  his  objects  in  inducing  Miss  Edwards  to 
lecture  here  was  to  popularize  the  subject  through  her  gifts 
of  speech.  It  is  certain  that  from  all  these  special  efforts 
down  to  1895-6  have  sprung  the  interest  in  several  centers 
like  Chicago,  Philadelphia,  Pittsburg,  New  Haven,  etc. 

A leaf  culled  from  the  published  “Journal  of  Convention  ” 
of  the  Diocese  of  Massachusetts  for  1889  conveys  some  idea 
of  his  busy  life.  In  obedience  to  the  canon  Dr.  Winslow 
reports  to  his  bishop: 

“Including  nearly  300  editorials,  articles,  letters  for  the  press  and 
17  lectures,  in  relation  to  Egyptian  and  Biblical  exploration  and  re- 
search, much  the  larger  part  of  my  year’s  work  has  been  for  the  Egypt 
Exploration  Fund.  Nearly  2,000  personal  notes,  countless  circulars 
despatched,  580  receipts  written,  the  entire  financial  management, 
with  its  arduous  clerical  toil,  are  among  my  drudgeries.  The  bright 
side  of  the  labor  to  me  — a sufficient  reward  — is  in  the  noble  achieve- 
ments of  the  Fund  for  Religion  and  Science,  and  in  the  personal  receipt 
by  me  of  scores  of  grateful  and  inspiring  letters  from  some  of  the  best 
and  greatest  men  in  our  land.  Passing  by  congenial  work  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Free  Church  Association,  various  societies  of  our  State, 
and  with  several  learned  bodies  of  Europe  and  America,  I simply  add 
that  I have  officiated  at  110  services,  attended  97  meetings  (taking 
part  in  82  of  them),  for  philanthropical,  charitable,  educational,  or 
historical  purposes,  and  been  present  at  27  committee  meetings. 
Sermons,  addresses,  remarks,  lectures,  for  all  occasions,  church  and 
secular,  foot  up  199.” 

The  report  in  1892  runs  like  this:  “Delivered  or  read  42  lectures, 
addresses,  papers,  on  subjects  chiefly  historical,  archseological,  Bibli- 
cal; wrote  282  articles,  letters,  editorials,  for  the  press:  despatched 
3,200  official  letters  and  notes;  mailed  17,000  circulars.”  Probably 
1,000  volumes  of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  were  distributed  dur- 
ing the  past  year  in  the  United  States,  and  the  money  sent  to  England 
by  Dr.  Winslow  footed  up  £1,350. 

During  the  years  1886-9  Dr.  Winslow  saw  the  golden  time 
had  come  for  seeming  monumental  and  other  valuable  ob- 
jects for  the  Museum  in  Boston.  It  can  never  come  again. 
He  raised  money,  pleaded  with  the  Committee,  especially 
with  Miss  Edwards,  and  as  a result  the  monuments  are  un- 
rivalled in  any  other  Apierican  Museum.  The  colossal  statue 
of  Raineses  II,  the  gigantic  column  from  Bubastis,  the  colos- 


182 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


sal  head  of  Hathor,  the  Hyksos  sphinx,  the  statue  of  the 
brother  of  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  the  processional  blocks 
from  Bubastis,  and  the  exquisite  pilm-leaf  column  from 
Ahnas,  are  among  these  treasures  * Miss  Edwards  herself 
officially  referred  to  this  indebtedness  to  Dr.  Winslow  at  the 
Fund  meeting.  The  report  says  of  the  Bubastis  sculptures: 

Miss  Edwards  concluded  with  a cordial  reference  to  the  great 
services  of  Dr.  Winslow,  their  Vice-President  and  Honorary  Treas- 
urer for  America,  to  whom  the  Society  was  deeply  indebted  for  the 
zeal  with  wThich  he  had  popularized  the  work  of  the  Fund  in  the  United 
States,  and  to  wThom  his  fellow  countrymen  were  no  less  indebted  for 
the  interest  which  he  had  induced  them  to  take  in  a delightful  study, 
as  well  as  for  the  splendid  monuments  with  which,  through  his  exer- 
tions, the  Boston  collection  has  been  enriched. 

Let  all  who  visit  the  Egyptian  halls  in  the  Boston  Museum 
of  Fine  Arts  remember  that  “ through  his  exertions  the  Boston 
collection  has  been  enriched  ” so  nobly. 

While  reviews,  magazines,  proceedings  of  learned  bodies, 
as  well  as  the  daily  and  weekly  press  have  frequently  pub- 
lished Dr.  Winslow’s  archaeological  writings,  he  has  not  been 
idle  in  other  departments  of  intellectual  labor.  Until  re- 
cently he  preached  about  every  Sunday,  and  he  has  preached 
in  about  115  Episcopal  churches  in  Massachusetts  alone. 
He  has  devoted  much  time  to  New  England,  especially  Ply- 
mouth Colony  history,  among  his  brochures  being  “The 
Pilgrim  Fathers  in  Holland,”  “Gov.  Edward  Winslow,”  with 
numerous  magazine  or  journalistic  articles  relating  to  colo- 
nial history.  He  has  done  work  in  this  line  for  the  cyclopae- 
dias, and  is  consulted  thereon  as  an  authority.  Among  his 
Egyptological  writings  are:  “What  says  Egypt  of  Israel?” 
“ Explorations  at  Zoan  ”;  “A  Greek  City  in  Egypt  ”;  “The 
Identification  of  Avaris  ” ; various  small  brochures  or  pam- 
phlets on  “The  Distribution  of  Papyri  in  the  United  States  ”; 
“Egyptian  Antiquities  for  our  Museums”;  “Ushabtis  in 

*We  learn  that  among  the  precious  relics  from  Abydos  is  the  Sard  and 
Gold  Scepter  of  King  Khasekhemui  of  the  second  dynasty  — the  oldest  known 
scepter  in  the  world.  Owing  to  Dr.  Winslow’s  personal  appeal  to  London,  and 
own  generous  subscription,  this  rare  historic  and  archaic  memento  is  now  in  the 
Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  where  it  was  placed  in  1902. 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


183 


America”;  and  his  tribute  to  Miss  Edwards,  “The  Queen 
of  Egyptology,”  was  widely  read. 

Of  Dr.  Winslow’s  successful  and  untiring  labors  to  secure 
support  for  the  Fund  no  one  except  Miss  Edwards  knew 
better  than  Mr.  H.  A.  Grueber,  long  the  English  treasurer. 
In  1890  he  reported: 

Upon  comparing  our  present  position  with  that  of  former  years,  it 
will  be  seen  that,  financially,  the  Fund  continues  to  make  steady 
progress.  To  keep  it  up  to  this  high  level,  I need  scarcely  say  is  no 
light  task;  and  the  credit  of  the  prosperous  state  of  affairs  is  due, 
now  as  before,  to  the  great  organizing  powers  and  unremitting  exer- 
tions of  your  Hon.  Secretary  and  Vice-President,  Miss  Edwards;  to 
the  continued  brilliant  services  of  your  Hon.  Treasurer  for  America, 
the  Rev.  W.  C.  Winslow;  and  also  to  the  hearty  cooperation  of  the 
several  Local  Honorary  Secretaries. 

Sir  John  Fowler,  the  President,  in  1892  said  in  his  annual 
address,  as  reported: 

Before  closing  his  address,  the  President  referred  to  the  remarks 
of  a former  speaker  as  to  the  relative  proportion  of  the  American  and 
English  subscription  lists,  stating  that  the  American  subscriptions 
were  due  to  the  indefatigable  exertions  of  our  eminent  Hon.  Treas- 
urer and  Vice-President,  the  Rev.  W.  C.  Winslow,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  etc. 
He  said  that  the  Balance  Sheet  was,  as  it  ought  to  be,  most  satisfac- 
tory, but  two  circumstances  led  him  to  hope  for  an  increase  in  the 
English  subscriptions:  Firstly,  a feeling  of  jealousy  or  rivalry  that 
England  should  be  equal  to  America.  He  assured  the  subscribers 
that  this  would  not  offend  the  Americans ; and  said  that  he  should  not 
be  content  so  long  as  he  was  President  of  the  Fund  till  this  object  was 
gained. 

The  official  circular  of  the  Society  in  London  for  1899 
states  that  “from  its  foundation,  the  Egypt  Exploration 
Fund  has  received  large  pecuniary  support  from  the  United 
States,  chiefly  through  the  enthusiasm  and  energy  of  the 
Rev.  Dr.  W.  C.  Winslow  of  Boston.” 

It  was  owing  to  Dr.  Winslow’s  earnest  persuasion  that 
Miss  Edwards  came  to  America,  and  to  his  untiring  efforts 
that  a large  part  of  her  brilliant  series  of  lecture-engagements, 
especially  university  or  academic,  was  secured.  Her  first 


184 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


collegiate  lecture  was  at  Vassar.  We  quote  from  his  bro- 
chure, “The  Queen  of  Egyptology 

No  single  achievement  of  my  life  is  more  gratifying  to  me  than  my 
successful  effort  to  induce  my  friend  to  visit  the  United  States.  The 
invitation  was  a fitting  avant  coureur  to  the  welcome  and  success  that 
everywhere  were  hers.  Having  written  over  two  hundred  personal 
notes  to  representative  men  and  women  in  every  department  of  life 
and  work,  I put  out  a leaflet,  on  March  1st,  1889,  upon  her  capacities 
to  lecture  and  her  topics,  to  which  I appended  the  following  invitation, 
signed  by  Whittier,  Lowell,  Holmes,  Curtis,  Warner,  Parkman,  Booth, 
Vanderbilt,  Morton,  Storrs,  the  editors  of  Harper’s,  The  Century,  The 
Atlantic,  Scribner’s,  The  Nation,  The  Critic,  The  Literary  World,  about 
all  the  leading  university  and  college  presidents,  etc., — some  two 
hundred  names  in  all : 

The  proposed  visit  of  Miss  Amelia  B.  Edwards  to  the  United  States 
to  see  our  country  and  to  lecture  upon  subjects  in  which  she  is  an  ac- 
knowledged authority,  if  carried  into  effect,  will  be  an  event  of  special 
interest  to  the  intelligent  and  cultivated  people  of  our  land.  She 
may  be  assured  of  a hearty  welcome,  and  her  lectures  cannot  fail  to 
prove  of  rare  profit  and  pleasure  to  her  audiences. 

President  Barnard,  of  Columbia  University,  asked  Dr. 
Winslow’s  opinion  upon  the  conferring  of  a degree  on  Miss 
Freeman,  then  president  at  Wellesley,  which,  it  is  needless 
to  say,  he  heartily  commended.  Dr.  Winslow  presented  the 
merits  of  Miss  Edwards  so  forcibly  that  both  women  received 
L.H.D.  from  Columbia.  That  a woman's  college  should 
recognize  Miss  Edwards’  merits  and  work  was  in  his  mind, 
and  he  wrote  to  President  Seelye  accordingly.  So  that  Dr. 
Edwards  was  the  first  English  woman  who  ever  received 
LL.D.,  and  upon  her,  Smith  College,  Northampton,  bestowed 
its  initial  honorary  degree. 

All  who  heard  her  lectures  and  read  her  “Pharaohs,  Fel- 
lahs and  Explorers  ” (her  lectures  here)  are  indeed  indebted 
to  his  foresight  and  good  judgment  in  winning  her  to  come 
to  America  and  interest  people  in  Old  Egypt.  What  a 
change  from  1883  to  1902!  From  the  spades  that  dug  up  the 
Israelite-made  bricks,  straw  and  strawless,  at  Pithom,  to  the 
spades  of  Petrie  at  Abydos,  is  represented  a remarkable  devel- 
opment in  discovery,  results,  and  popular  growth.  The 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


185 


labors  of  Dr.  Winslow  for  a decade  were  a seed-time,  a plant- 
ing, from  which  local  societies  in  various  places  in  the  United 
States  have  sprung,  and  are  doing  to-day  a good  work  in  secur- 
ing funds  for  the  Society  and  “objects”  for  their  Museums. 
The  devotion  of  nearly  nineteen  years  to  a cause,  which  Dr. 
Winslow  has  so  ably  championed  here  in  America,  has  been 
carried  on  without  any  financial  recompense.  No  man  has 
more  unselfishly  applied  his  time  and  his  energies  for  such 
a long  time  with  such  deep  interest.  When  the  Egypt  Ex- 
ploration Fund  was  first  started,  there  were  many  difficulties 
to  be  overcome,  requiring  patience  and  tact.  These  would 
well  nigh  discourage  any  one  except  the  ardent  student  of 
archaeology.  In  the  early  days  of  the  Fund  it  required  the 
constant  study  of  details  to  make  a presentable  case  before 
the  literary  and  other  societies  of  this  country.  Only  those 
who  know  of  such  efforts  can  estimate  how  much  untiring 
labor  was  involved  in  this  undertaking. 

Bishop  Paddock  of  Massachusetts,  the  immediate  prede- 
cessor of  Phillips  Brooks  as  Bishop,  spoke  to  the  writer  of 
this  sketch  how  well  repaid  he  was  in  attending  one  of  Dr. 
Winslow’s  lectures,  and  how  valuable  was  his  service  to  the 
Christian  Church  in  the  manner  in  which  he  could  adorn  such 
a subject  as  Egyptian  exploration  to  the  ordinary  listener. 
The  religious  press  opened  its  columns  to  his  contributions, 
and  was  always  glad  to  welcome  them,  for,  while  his  scholar- 
ship was  known,  it  never  came  in  the  shape  of  dictatorship, 
but  was  modest  and  unassuming.  Consequently,  with  the 
increase  of  the  interest  for  the  Fund  there  was  the  ardent 
assurance  that  his  leadership  in  promoting  it  would  be 
sensitive  of  the  expectations  of  those  who  were  contributing 
annually  towards  its  support.  Nothing  has  ever  been  reason- 
ably objected  to  in  his  administration,  and  the  published 
reports  themselves  testify  to  his  successful  leadership  of  the 
American  Branch  of  the  Society.  His  zeal  in  its  promotion 
has  been  characterized  by  prudence  in  expenditures,  and 
careful  summaries  of  results  secured. 

The  name  of  Dr.  Winslow  must  inevitably  stand  for  most 
in  the  history  of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  in  this  country; 


186 


WILLIAM  COPLEY  WINSLOW,  D.D. 


and  when  the  important  results  from  his  labors  are  widely 
known,  as  they  are  already  recognized  by  American  scholars, 
his  long,  honorable  and  successful  service  in  promoting  the 
cause  of  archaeology  in  this  country,  and  in  popularizing 
the  work  of  exploration  in  Egypt,  will  be  held  in  grateful 
remembrance. 


Walpole,  Mass.,  June,  1903. 


A.  E.  G. 


OPINIONS  OF  AMERICAN  SUBSCRIBERS 


THE  SINGULAR  REORGANIZATION  OF  THE  EGYPT 
EXPLORATION  FUND. 

The  monograph  of  one  hundred  and  eighty-six  pages,  “ The  Truth  about  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund,” 
receives  the  strong  approval  of  representative  subscribers  of  the  American  Branch  of  that  Fund.  One  of  its 
three  illustrations  is  a fine  likeness  of  the  lamented  Miss  Amelia  B.  Edwards.  In  it  the  founder  of  the  Ameri- 
can Branch,  Rev.  Dr.  William  Copley  Winslow,  describes  how  the  London  Committee  asked  a non-subscriber, 
uninterested  in  the  work,  to  form  a Boston  Committee,  without  consulting  subscribers,  and  against  the  pro- 
test of  many  of  them;  and  how  the  request  of  the  eighty  Local  Secretaries  was  utterly  ignored’  This,  too,  in 
face  of  the  official  declaration  that  “ in  any  reorganization  of  the  American  Branch  the  approval  of  American 
subscribers  is  essential  ”! 

To  meet  the  demand,  it  becomes  necessary  now  to  'print  some  of  these  “ opinions.”  The  list  below  could 
be  duplicated  several  times  numerically.  Many  subscribers  have  not  yet  seen  the  book.  Dr.  Winslow,  525 
Beacon  Street,  Boston,  mails  it  free  to  all  such  who  apply  for  a copy. 


Rt.  Rev.  T.  U.  Dudley,  D.D.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  Chairman  of 
the  House  of  Bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church:  “ The  behav- 
iour of  the  London  Committee  is  incomprehensible.  I do  not 
see  how  any  American  Churchman  can  contribute  to  its  fund 
until  it  shall  have  made  amends  to  you  and  reorganized  its 
representation  (The  Boston  Committee)  in  this  country.” 

Rt.  Rev.  George  F.  Seymour,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  Illinois,  the 
eminent  theologian,  formerly  Dean  of  the  General  Theological 
Seminary  (N.  Y.):  “ My  personal  knowledge  of  you  for  many 
years  counts  for  a great  deal  with  me,  since  those  years  have 
revealed  to  me  a character  of  the  highest  integrity,  uncom- 
promising honesty,  fidelity  to  duty,  and  at  the  same  time  of 
the  most  generous  and  charitable  impulses.  This  I say  must 
be  added  by  me  at  least  as  a preface  to  the  book  which 
you  kindly  sent  me,  because  it  makes  me  doubly  sure  in  the 
conclusion  that  you  have  been  treated,  as  our  representative 
by  the  London  Committee,  in  a manner  which  baffles  explana- 
tion. The  American  Branch  owes  its  existence  and  pros- 
perity to  you,  and  the  entire  society  more  to  you  than  to  any 
one  else;  accordingly,  you  were  entitled  to  receive  every  con- 
sideration at  the  hands  of  its  Committee. 

“ It  is  not  for  me  to  criticise  the  motives  of  these  parties  any 
farther  than  to  say  that  I shall  hereafter  withhold  any  coopera- 
tion with  them  until  satisfaction  has  been  given  to  you,  and 
not  only  to  you,  but  to  us,  for  the  treatment  which  you,  and 
we,  through  you,  have  received  at  their  hands.” 

Rt.  Rev.  0.  W.  Whitaker,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop  of  Penn- 
sylvania: “ It  has  the  charm  of  a well-told  detective  story, 
but  its  revelations  of  ambition  and  deceitfulness  on  the  part 
of  some,  and  of  unscrupulousness  and  inconsistency  on  the  part 
of  others  with  whom  you  were  associated,  are  painful.  The 
action  of  the  London  Committee  is  amazing.  The  Fund  owes 
far  more  to  you  than  to  any  one  else  who  has  been  connected 
with  it,  and  I feel  sure  that  if  all  the  facts  could  be  put  before 
a full  meeting  of  the  Committee,  there  would  be  a reconsidera- 
tion of  the  unjust  action  affecting  your  relationship  to  the 
organization.  I wish  I could  hope  for  a reconsideration  of 
the  action  of  some  persons  in  Boston,  but  I fear  they  will  find 
no  place  for  repentance. 

“ I shall  certainly  not  renew  my  subscription  to  the  Fund 
so  long  as  the  present  organization  of  the  American  Branch 
remains  unchanged.” 

Rt.  Rev.  Cameron  Mann,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  North  Dakota: 
“ I entirely  sympathize  with  you,  and  am  utterly  amazed  that 
such  a cabal  as  was  manufactured  against  you  could  ever  have 
existed. 


“ It  is  of  course  needless  for  me  to  say  that  I shall  have  noth- 
ing more  to  do  with  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  (as  Honor- 
ary Secretary)  until  it  has  made  all  honorable  amends.” 

Rev.  Morgan  Dix,  D.D.  (Oxford),  D.C.L.,  Rector  of  Trinity 
Parish,  New  York  City,  former  President  of  the  House  of  Cleri- 
cal and  Lay  Deputies  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States,  wrote  the  following  letter: 

My  dear  Dr.  Winslow,  — Thank  you  very  much  for  send- 
ing me  your  pamphlet  “ The  Truth  about  the  Egypt  Explora- 
tion Fund.”  I have  just  finished  it,  going  through  it  from 
beginning  to  end.  My  feelings  in  reading  it  were  those  of  sur- 
prise, astonishment,  indignation  and  disgust.  It  has  almost 
the  quality  of  a romance;  not  the  unreality,  but  the  absorb- 
ing interest.  What  a strange  story  has  been  yours!  To  have 
labored  so  long,  so  disinterestedly,  so  enthusiastically,  so  suc- 
cessfully for  a great  cause,  only  to  be  circumvented  and  thrown 
aside,  the  victim  of  secret  plots  and  a miserable  ambition!  It 
is  lamentable  to  think  of  the  breaking  up  of  that  work  in  this 
way;  and  I feel  aggrieved  at  the  weakness  and  carelessness 
with  which  those  persons  behaved,  who  should  have  upheld 
you  and  routed  your  adversaries.  I am  very  glad  that  you 
have  stated  your  side  of  the  case  so  clearly;  and,  as  one  of 
your  many  friends,  I repeat  with  reverence,  applying  the  words 
as  the  occasion  suggests,  “ He  shall  make  thy  righteousness  as 
clear  as  the  light,  and  thy  just  dealing  as  the  noonday.” 

I was,  as  you  know,  deeply  interested  in  the  work  of  the 
Egypt  Exploration  Fund,  and  a giver,  according  to  my  ability, 
to  its  support  and  labours.*  But  now  I withdraw  entirely  from 
membership,  and  decline  to  aid  any  further  until  full  justice 
shall  be  done  to  you,  and  reparation  such  as  the  wrongs  de- 
mand. It  is,  I suppose,  unreasonable  to  indulge  a hope  or 
dim  expectation  of  such  a result;  but  meanwhile  you  have 
my  sympathy  and  the  assurance  of  my  full  confidence  and 
warm  regard. 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

Morgan  Dix. 

The  Rev.  Wm.  Copley  Winslow,  D.D.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D. 

Prof.  Herrick  Johnson,  D.D.,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  Chicago, 
former  Moderator  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 

* Dr. Dix  and  the  late  Dr.  Hodman,  Dean  of  the  General  Theologicnl 
Seminary,  were  the  most  liberal  donors  to  the  society  among  all  the 
clerical  subscribers.  The  Dean  wrote  two  very  strong  letters,  one  to 
Sir  John  Evans  and  another  to  the  Committee.  lie  wrote  to  Dr. 
Winslow:  “ If  the  London  Committee  take,  as  they  have  done,  no  no- 
tice of  my  letter,  it  is  absolutely  useless  to  write  them  again.  I stated 
to  them  that  a change  in  the  Boston  Office  was  absolutely  necessary.” 


Church  in  the  United  States,  President  of  the  Presbyterian 
Hoard  of  Education,  etc.,  etc. : “You  have  a perfectly  clear 
case,  and  I cannot  understand  why  the  English  Committee  have 
behaved  a a they  have.  If  there  is  anything  you  can  do  to 
bring  the  matter  to  a direct  issue  it  should  be  done,  and  repa- 
ration compelled.’’ 

President  W.  F.  Warren,  D.D.,  LL.L).,  Boston  Univer- 
sity, author  of  “ Constitutional  Law  in  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,”  etc.,  etc.:  " 1 have  carefully  read  every  page  of 
your  most  interesting  statement,  and  I am  glad  to  have  the 
lacurur  in  my  previous  information  so  authentically  filled. 

“ The  reading  has  fully  decided  me  to  withhold  further  con- 
tributions until  the  London  Committee  bring  forth  fruits  meet 
for,  and  evidence  of,  repentance.” 

Bishop  I).  L.  Miller  of  the  German  Baptist  Church  in  the 
United  States:  “ You  have  shown  the  true  inwardness  of  the 
entire  matter.” 

Rev.  Samuel  M.  Warren,  Brookline,  Mass.,  of  the  New 
Jerusalem  (Swcdenborgian)  Church,  author,  etc.:  “ I have 
read  it  with  a feeling  of  astonishment  at  the  unaccountable 
injustice  of  the  London  Committee  to  yourself  personally  — 
who  have  done  so  great  service  to  the  Fund  — and  to  the  whole 
body  of  American  subscribers.  . . . The  poor  unworthy  Secre- 
tary, impelled  by  her  paltry  ambition,  would  soon  have  come 
to  the  end  of  her  tether,  without  great  harm  to  anybody  but 
herself,  if  the  Committee  had  acted  like  a body  of  judicial 
minded  men  intrusted  with  the  management  of  grave  affairs. 
...  I shall  not  subscribe  until  they  undo  what  they  have  done, 
and  consent  to  our  forming  a representative  Committee  for 
ourselves.” 

Rev.  Philip  S.  Moxom,  D.D.,  Springfield,  Mass.,  Congrega- 
tionalist,  University  Preacher  at  Harvard,  Yale,  Cornell,  etc., 
author:  “ It  is  my  conviction  that  you  were  shamefully  abused 
by  either  stupidity  or  malice,  or  both.  I have  no  patience  with 
those  people.  I quite  agree  with  what  Dr.  Goodwin*  says  about 
the  London  Committee.” 

Rev.  A.  P.  Putnam,  D.D.,  Salem,  Mass.,  the  eminent  Uni- 
tarian divine  and  author,  President  of  Danvers  Historical 
Society,  says:  “ My  thanks  for  the  copy  of  your  masterly  vin- 
dication of  yourself,  and  your  very  able  and  thorough  expose 
of  the  monstrous  wrong  that  was  done  you  in  displacing  you 
from  that  position  or  office  which  you  had  made  so  high  and 
honorable  by  your  remarkable  fidelity  and  success  in  the  dis- 
charge of  your  duties.  ...  1 was  more  grateful  to  you  than 
I can  toll  for  all  your  magnificent  and  unselfish  labors  in  the 
work  you  loved  so  well,  and  for  which  no  other  American  was 
so  well  fitted  as  yourself  by  your  tastes,  learning,  zeal  and 
energy.” 

Rev.  J.  Zimmerman,  D.l).,  LL.l).,  the  eminent  Lutheran 
divine,  author,  lecturer  at  Syracuse  University,  etc.:  “ Y'our 
position  is  unanswerable.” 

Archdeacon  R.  P.  Williams,  Diocese  of  Washington,  1).  C., 
Local  Secretary  there:  “ How  anyone  can  read  the  book  dis- 
passionately and  free  from  personal  bias,  without  becoming 
righteously  indignant,  is  more  than  I can  conceive.  . . . You 
arc  insulted,  the  subscribers  to  the  Fund  have  been  insulted, 
and  the  work  has  been  stricken  in  the  house  of  its  self-styled 
friends.” 

Archdeacon  A.  St.  John  Ciiamrre,  D.D.,  Lowell,  Dean  of 
the  Eastern  Convocation:  “ Y’our  book  vindicates  you.” 

Archdeacon  Joseph  Carey,  D.D.,  LL.l).,  Saratoga  Springs: 
“ You  have  been  the  mainstay  of  the  society  here.  The  Lon- 
don office  must  see  this  and  reinstate  you.” 

Very  Rev.  R.  W.  Norman,  D.D.,  D.C.L.,  Toronto,  of  the 

•Ukv.  Daniki  Goodwin,  Pii.D.,  D.D.,  author,  Ixical  Secretary  in 
Rhode  Island,  hud  said:  " Unless  the  London  Committee  retraces  its 
stops  by  making  all  possible  amends  to  you  and  apologising  to  the  local 
secretaries  (eighty  in  number)  for  so  cavalier  treatment  of  them,  it  will 
stand  permanently  discredited  in  America  ” 


Canadian  Church:  " I cannot  recall  another  such  instance  of 
disgraceful  and  outrageous  conduct.  ’ 

Rev.  James  S.  Stone,  D.D.,  of  the  Standing  Committee, 
Diocese  of  Chicago,  Local  Secretary  there:  “ You  have  fully 
vindicated  your  position.  The  evidence  is  complete  and  be- 
yond dispute.  . . . The  London  Committee  owe  some  ex- 
planation of  their  conduct  to  the  local  Secretaries  (about  eighty) 
who  asked  them  to  recognize  your  services  by  making  you  an 
honorary  officer.” 

Rev.  Dr.  William  Short,  St.  Louis,  President  of  the  Stand- 
ing Committee,  Diocese  of  Missouri:  “ The  London  Committee 
ought  to  acknowledge  its  error.” 

Rev.  J.  Newton  Perkins,  I). I).,  Secretary  of  the  American 
Church  Building  Fund:  “This  action  is  outrageous.” 

Rev.  R.  F.  Alsop,  D.D.,  Rector  of  St.  Ann’s  Church,  Brook- 
lyn (1,510  communicants):  “ I am  convinced  that  the  London 
Committee  have  acted  unfairly  and  very  unwisely.” 

Major-General  J.  L.  Chamberlain,  LL.l).,  former  Gov- 
ernor of  Maine  and  once  President  of  Bowdoin  College:  “ It 
is  a wonderful  story  and  you  have  told  it  with  great  prudence 
and  skill,  considering  what  you  had  to  say  and  to  refrain  from 
saying.  The  injustice  done  you  is  made  manifest  and  it  is 
unaccountable.” 

Hon.  E.  E.  Farm  an,  LL.D.,  former  Consul-General  to  Egypt, 
through  whose  efforts  the  obelisk  was  secured  for  New  York: 
“ I shall  not  renew  iny  subscription  until  this  great  wrong 
shall  have  been  righted,  as  it  certainly  will  be  if  there  is  any 
manliness  or  sense  of  justice  in  the  London  Committee.” 

James  Schouler,  LL.T).,  Boston,  the  eminent  historian, 
former  President  American  Historical  Association:  “The 
pamphlet  confirms  me  in  the  opinion  that  you  have  been  treated 
most  unjustly." 

Rev.  Alexander  McKenzie,  D.D.,  Cambridge,  long  Secre- 
tary to  the  corporation  of  Harvard  University:  “ I have  read 
your  pamphlet  and  you  prove  your  case.  ...  It  was  unjust 
and  I think  the  Fund  must  suffer  for  it.” 

Hon.  James  P.  Baxter,  President  of  the  Maine  Historical 
Society,  Mayor  of  Portland,  President  of  the  New  England 
Historic-Genealogical  Society  in  Boston:  “ Your  monograph 
presents  the  subject  in  such  a concise  form  that  I have  been 
interested  anew  in  it,  and  more  fully  realize  the  great  wrong 
that  has  been  done.  It  is  indeed  a strange  story  and  should 
overwhelm  those  who  have  plotted  against  you  with  confu- 
sion. I quite  agree  with  Dr.  Dix.” 

Hon.  Samuel  Sloan,  President  of  Delaware,  Lackawanna  & 
Western  R.  R.:  “ You  have  the  confidence  and  respect  of  the 
subscribers,”  etc. 

R.  B.  Knox,  Esq.,  banker,  Duluth,  a Local  Secretary:  “ I 
read  it  with  a great  deal  of  care.  The  Committee  has  acted 
hastily,  injudiciously,  and  without  full  knowledge.” 

David  Harlowe,  Esq.,  Milwaukee,  Local  Secretary:  “ It 
covers  the  subject  thoroughly  in  all  its  parts.” 

Edward  B.  Sturges,  Esq.,  Local  Secretary  at  Scranton: 
“ Though  generally  a very  busy  man,  I read  the  entire  book, 
and  have  never  sent  a dollar  to  the  Fund  since.” 

F.  Colling  wood,  C.E.,  Esq.,  Elizabeth,  N.  J.:  “I  will  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  American  office  as  at  present  consti- 
tuted.” 

Chief  Engineer  F.  G.  McKean,  U.  S.  N.,  YVashington: 
“ You  have  been  treated  very  badly,  but  I have  no  doubt  you 
can  stand  it  if  the  other  side  can.” 

Chief  Quartermaster  W.  E.  Coleman,  U.  S.  A.,  San 
Francisco:  “ The  conduct  of  the  Committee  was  disgraceful. 
Carry  the  war  into  Africa  until  the  great  wrong  is  righted  and 
justice  done.” 


Major-General  A.  S.  Webb,  LL.D.,  U.  S.  A..  Commander- 
General  of  the  Military  Order  Foreign  Wars:  " I have  read 
all  of  the  Monograph.  I also  am  indignant.  . . . Proper  re- 
spect must  be  paid  to  American  subscribers,  or  there  will  be 
no  American  subscribers.” 

Hon.  Samuel  Small,  York:  “ I think  it  an  outrage,  and  for 
the  life  of  me  cannot  understand  what  the  Committee  means.” 

_ Charles  W.  Sloane,  Esq.,  lawyer,  Local  Secretary  in  New 
York:  " You,  the  founder  of  the  Fund  here,  merited  treatment 
other  than  that  appropriate  for  a mischief-making  subordinate.” 

John  Gray,  Esq.,  of  the  law  firm  of  Gray,  Abbott  & Wil- 
liston,  Chicago:  “ It  seems  to  me  to  be  an  incontrovertible 
statement  of  facts,  and  plainly  shows  that  a great  wrong  has 
been  done  in  retiring  you  from  the  position  you  held  so  long, 
and  in  which  you  did  so  much  to  interest  the  public.  The 
answer  of  the  London  Committee  to  the  request  of  the  Ameri- 
can Secretaries  shows  that  the  former  have  little  regard  for 
the  opinions  of  American  subscribers.” 

Ellis  L.  Motte,  Esq.,  of  Schouler  & Motte,  Boston:  ” .All 
who  read  your  book  will  at  once  see  how  complete  is  your  ab- 
solute exoneration  from  the  least  fault,  not  only  that,  but 
also  that  your  behaviour  under  the  tremendous  strain  was 
flawless.” 

Prof.  J.  J.  Stevenson,  Sc.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York  Univer- 
sity, President  American  Geological  Society,  New  York  Acad- 
emy of  Sciences,  etc.:  “ I have  read  most  of  it  carefully,  and 
am  free  to  say  that  you  have  been  treated  shabbily.  . . . The 
London  Committee  owes  it  to  itself  to  make  some  explanation. 
The  explanations  offered  do  not  explain"  (Italics  added). 

Colonel  Jacob  H.  Greene,  Hartford,  President  Connecti- 
cut Mutual  Life  Insurance  Co.:  ‘‘The  whole  performance  is 
astounding.  We  are  entitled  to  know  from  London  what  they 
mean  by  it.” 

D.  H.  Ayers,  Esq.,  Troy:  “ It  appears  to  me  that  an  ex- 
planation is  in  order,  as  silence  under  the  circumstances  seems 
to  imply  a confession  of  guilt.” 

Hon.  David  E.  Heineman,  Detroit:  “ I read  it  carefully, 
and  it  seemed  to  me  that  an  answer,  if  one  could  be  made,  was 
due  from  London.  That  answer  is  not  forthcoming,  and  in 
its  absence  but  one  conclusion  can  be  drawn  — that  no  answer 
can  be  made.  I desire  to  thank  you  for  the  undeviating  course 
you  have  pursued,  and  to  offer  you  the  encouragement  em- 
bodied in  Lincoln’s  .phrase,  that  ‘ nothing  is  settled  until  it  is 
settled  right.'  ” 

Hon.  Henry  N.  Loud,  President  Michigan  Board  of  Library 
Commissioners:  “ My  sympathies  are  certainly  with  you  in 
the  matter.” 

Rev.  C.  R.  Palmer,  D.D.,  trustee  of  Yale,  and  President  of 
the  Connecticut  Branch,  Egypt  Exploration  Fund:  ‘‘I  can- 
not understand  from  your  representations  how  such  a course 
as  has  been  pursued  by  the  London  Committee  is  to  be  justi- 
fied.” 

Prof.  C.  Leidich,  Ph.D.,  of  the  Detroit  Branch,  Egypt  Ex- 
ploration Fund:  “ I still  view  the  matter  from  the  same  stand- 
point that  you  do.  . . . We  do  not  think  that  you  have  been 
justly  treated.” 

Prof.  J.  D.  Davis,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Princeton:  "Your  history 
of  the  case  is  most  illuminating.  . . . The  essential  facts  are 
so  clear  and  so  well  known  that  no  statement  made  by  the 
other  side  can  reverse  the  general  verdict.” 

Rev.  W.  W.  Adams,  D.D.,  Trustee  of  Williams  College:  “ I 
regarded  your  displacement  as  injustice  to  you,  and  impolitic 
on  the  part  of  the  English  managers.” 

Prof.  G.  H.  Perkins,  Sc.D.,  Vermont  University:  “ I 
greatly  regret  the  very  unwise  and  singular  action  of  the  Eng- 
lish Committee.” 

Prof.  F.  W.  Williams,  Ph.D.,  of  Yale,  and  an  official  of  the 


American  Oriental  Society:  “ You  have  made  a strong  case 
which  perfectly  justifies  you.” 

Prof.  E.  H.  Williams,  Sc.D.,  Lehigh  University:  “ I think 
it  about  as  convincing  a document  as  one  would  wish  to  read.” 

Prof.  8.  M.  Jackson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  the  American  His- 
torical Association:  “ You  have  defended  yourself  on  all  points, 
and  produced  a crushing  answer.” 

Prof.  C.  M.  Tyler,  D.D.,  Cornell  University:  " It  is  anni- 
hilating.” 

Prof.  T.  C.  Estey,  Rochester  University:  “ I congratulate 
you  upon  the  convincing  character  of  your  presentation.  I had 
forgotten  that  educated  men  could  behave  so  much  like  sav- 
ages.” 

Prof.  H.  C.  G.  Brandt,  Ph.D.,  Hamilton  College:  “ Such 
a policy  is  outrageous  and  suicidal.” 

President  J.  M.  Taylor,  D.D.,  LL.l).,  Vassar  College,  con- 
cludes his  note:  " I feel  that  your  long  and  most  highly  honor- 
able service  to  this  cause  should  not  have  been  forgotten.” 

Prof.  Irvino  F.  Wood,  Ph.D.,  Smith  College  : “ You  have 
made  a strong  case.” 

Prof.  F.  K.  Sanders,  Ph.D.,  Yale:  " I am  in  entire  sym- 
pathy with  your  position.” 

President  F.  D.  Blakeslee,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Cazcnovia  Sem- 
inary: “ I shall  never  pay  another  dollar  until  this  great  wrong 
is  righted.” 

President  II.  C.  Haydn,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Western  Reserve 
College,  concludes  his  note  “ with  regrets  that  your  long  and 
honorable  connection  with  the  Society  has  been  interrupted.” 

Prof.  J.  Burkitt  Webb,  Sc.I).,  formerly  of  Cornell,  now  of 
Institute  of  Technology,  Hoboken,  N.  J.:  " The  world  consists 
of  two  classes  of  people  — those  whose  worth  and  work  entitle 
them  to  a place  in  it,  and  those  who  are  not  thus  entitled.  The 
latter,  if  not  content,  must  resort  to  unfair  and  underhanded 
means  to  better  themselves.” 

Franklin  Carter,  Pii.D.,  LL.D.,  former  President  of  Wil- 
liams College:  “ It  seems  to  be  one  of  those  cases  where  men 
do  all  the  work  to  make  a thing  a success,  — and  make  it,  too, 
— and  are  pushed  out  to  make  way  for  those  who  do  not  know 
what  the  cost  has  been.” 

Prof.  C.  C.  Tohricy,  Ph.D.,  Editor  American  Oriental  So- 
ciety Journal:  “ You  have  indeed  been  unjustly  and  unworth- 
ily treated.” 

J.  N.  FRADENnunr.ii,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  the  eminent  orientalist: 
" Your  revelations  are  amazing.  The  publication  was  not 
only  justified,  but  demanded  in  vindication  of  yourself  and  in 
the  cause  of  truth  and  justice.” 

Arthur  S.  Cooley,  Ph.D.  (Harvard):  “ One  who  had  done 
so  much  for  the  Fund  deserved  far  different  treatment.” 

Prof.  W.  T.  Battle,  Ph.D.,  American  School  of  Classical 
Studies,  Athens:  “ It  is  clear  that  your  book  abundantly  justi- 
fies your  protest  against  the  treatment  that  you  have  received. 

I sincerely  wish  for  your  reinstatement.” 

President  G.  E.  Merrill,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Colgate  University: 

" It  seems  as  if  the  Committee  had  not  done  tne  right  thing.” 
Prof.  George  T.  Little,  Litt.D.,  Bowdoin  College,  ends 
his  note,  “ deeply  regretting  the  injustice  done  you,”  etc. 

A.  H.  Griffith,  Director  of  Detroit  Museum  of  Art:  " I feel 
that  you  are  in  the  right.” 

Rev.  John  Wright,  D.D.,  St.  Paul,  author,  lecturer  on 
Egypt:  "It  covers  the  ground  completely  and  is  a clear  vin- 
dication.” 

Mrs.  Henry  F.  Durant,  trustee  of  Wellesley  College  (founded 
by  Mr.  Durant) : " You  have  been  most  singularly,  unjustly 


treated,  after  having  been  used  as  the  chief  promoter  of  the 
cause.” 

Mrs.  Esther  B.  Steele,  Litt.D.,  historical  author:  ‘‘There 
certainly  seems  something  inexplicable  in  the  recent  manage- 
ment of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund.  . . . You  certainly  have 
the  sympathy  and  respect  to  which  your  devotion  entitles  you.” 
Miss  Sybil  Carter,  deaconess,  Local  Secretary  in  New  York: 
“ What  a disgraceful  record  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  has 
made  for  itself!  I shall  not  give  the  present  management  a 
cent.” 

Mrs.  Thomas  S.  McGraw,  Detroit,  life  member:  “ I have 
as  yet  not  read  more  than  half  your  exposition  of  the  shameful 
facts,  although  I found  it  intensely  interesting.  ...  I have 
faith  that  somehow  good  will  come  out  of  this  evil,  but  I am 
confident  that  such  good  will  not  be  credited  to  the  account 
of  the  London  Committee,”  etc. 

Mrs.  William  Thaw,  Pittsburg,  patron:  “The  habitual 
pig-headed  selfishness  of  the  British  organization  (Committee) 
is,  of  course,  responsible  for  the  whole  situation.  To  turn  down 
the  man  who  had  organized  and  carried  on  the  work  from  the 
outset  is  as  indefensible  as  it  is  stupid.” 

Editorial  Opinions.  Only  a small  number  of  Editors  have 
read  the  book,  some  of  whom  are  here  quoted : 

W.  H.  Ward,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  The  Independent,  N.  Y.:  “I 
am  fully  convinced  of  the  injustice  of  the  treatment  you  have 
received,  and  of  the  unwisdom,  to  say  the  least,  of  those  who 
have  made  this  revolution.” 

Rev.  E.  T.  Sullivan,  The  Church  Militant,  Boston:  “The 
method  of  it  will  cost  the  Society  subscribers,  I am  sure,  and 
it  serves  it  right.” 

F.  C.  Morehouse,  The  Living  Church:  “ At  least  in  this 
country  you  need  no  vindication.” 

Rev.  A.  E.  Dunning,  D.D.,  The  Congregationalist,  Boston: 
“ You  have  my  sympathy,  and  also  my  congratulations  that, 
you  have  got  out  of  official  relations  with  an  organization  which 
has  such  a load  to  carry.” 

Rev.  J.  B.  Drury,  D.D.,  The  Christian  Intelligencer , N.  Y. : 
“ You  have  been  badly  and  most  unjustly  treated.” 

Paul  Carus,  Pii.  D.,  The  Open  Court,  Chicago:  “ The  reve- 
lations which  you  make  cause  me  to  feel  alarmed  with  the  way 
in  which  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  is  being  run.” 

The  Churchman  editorially  remarks  that,  “ subscribers  ought 
to  take  cognizance  of  a pamphlet  on  the  singular  reorganiza- 
tion to  which  this  American  Branch  has  been  subjected.” 

The  Pacific  Churchman,  San  Francisco,  editorially  says: 
“ The  book  is  one  of  absorbing  interest  and  very  great  impor- 
tance. ...  It  is  a story  of  no  credit  to  the  English  Parent 
Society;  it  ought  to  rouse  the  love  of  fair  play  which  all  Eng- 
lishmen are  said  to  hold  very  dear,”  etc. 

Records  of  the  Past,  the  illustrated  monthly  magazine,  Wash- 
ington, devoted  to  archieology,  remarks: 

The  success  of  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  has  been  largely  due  to 
the  financial  aid  contributed  by  Americans.  For  the  interest  created 
here  in  the  work  in  Egypt  and  for  the  large  sums  of  money  contributed 
annually  by  the  people  of  this  country,  both  Americans  and  English- 
men are  almost  entirely  indebted  to  Dr.  Winslow.  He  was  unselfish 
and  devoted  in  his  work.  He  did  not  ask  for  and  did  not  receive  a 
salary.  He  succeeded  in  interesting  the  American  Press  throughout 
the  country  in  the  work  and  contributed  many  articles  to  newspapers 
and  magazines.  He  wrote  thousands  of  letters  to  individuals  appeal- 
ing for  contributions  to  the  Society,  and,  as  we  have  stated,  was  emi- 
nently successful.  In  the  whole  history  of  exploration  there  is  not  to 
be  found  nnother  such  example  of  self-sacrifice  and  devotion.  . . . 


Last  year  Dr.  Winslow  informed  the  London  Committee  that  he  would 
no  longer  be  associated  with  such  an  .office  secretary,  and  suggested 
the  names  of  several  prominent  subscribers  in  America  for  a commit- 
tee to  represent  the  American  Branch  and  conduct  its  affairs.  But 
Mr.  Cotton  and  Iris  clique,  who  were  seemingly  in  control  of  the  London 
Committee,  ignored  the  rights  of  the  subscribers  in  this  country  and 
requested  a person  who  was  not  a subscriber  to  the  fund  to  form  an 
American  Committee.  . . . The  founders  of  the  Egypt  Exploration 
Fund  intended  the  Society  to  labor  for  the  great  cause  in  which  the 
scientific  and  religious  world  was,  is  and  ever  will  be  interested  — 
Truth.  The  London  Committee  had  better  go  back  to  first  principles. 
The  treatment  Dr.  Winslow  has  received  from  it  has  been  resented  by 
hundreds  of  subscribers  to  the  Society.  . . . We  advise  all  contribu- 
tors to  withdraw  their  support  to  the  Egypt  Exploration  Fund  until 
its  Directors  right  the  great  wrong  they  have  done  Dr.  Winslow  and 
restore  him  to  the  position  he  filled  for  so  many  years  with  honor  and 
credit  to  the  Society  and  the  work  of  historical  research.  If  the  Lon- 
don Committee  will  not  do  this,  then  Americans  interested  in  the  work 
of  exploration  in  Egypt  should  organize  an  American  society  and  con- 
duct their  own  explorations. 

The  following  extracts  represent  the  drastic  and  mild  type 
of  criticism: 

Rev.  M.  B.  Lambdin,  St.  Albans,  W.  Va. : “ It  has  been  read 
with  exceeding  care,  and  in  a judicial  frame  of  mind.  You 
have  been  not  simply  shabbily  treated,  but  outrageously  so. 
While  perusing  its  pages  I felt  the  constant  sense  of  a rising 
righteous  indignation  in  view  of  what  you  have  been  made  to 
suffer.  It  almost  passes  belief.  ...  It  does  seem  to  me  that, 
as  an  outcome  of  your  expose,  not  merely  self-respect,  but  a 
regard  to  individual  decency,  honesty  and  justice,  ought  to 
prompt  the  London  Committee  at  once  to  right  an  atrocious 
wrong,  — so  far  as  they  can,  — not  only  in  restoring  you  to 
office,  but  by  a manly  and  public  apology.” 

President , of : “ The  London  Committee  act  like 

an  hallucinated  batch  of  idiots.” 

William  G.  Johnston,  Esq.:  Watertown,  N.  Y.,  Local  Sec- 
retary and  patron:  “ It  would  be  impossible  for  any  candid 
person  to  read  your  monograph  without  coming  to  the  conclu- 
sion reached  by  Dr.  Morgan  Dix.  It  does  not  seem  to  rre  that 
the  London  Committee  can  offer  any  apology  adequate  for  the 
shameful  manner  of  their  treatment  of  you.  . . . Instead  of 
injuring  you  in  the  least,  they  have  greatly  injured  themselves 
and  the  Society  they  represent.” 

Rev.  S.  M.  Newman,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  pastor  in  Washington: 
“ . . . I wrote  them  squarely  that  I was  disgusted  with  the 
management  of  affairs  and  wished  my  subscription  cancelled.” 
Rev.  Dr.  James  Carter,  Williamsport,  Pa.:  “It  is  an  ex- 
haustive presentation  of  the  case.  Nothing  could  be  plainer. 
It  should  settle  conclusively  the  question  of  the  propriety  of 
the  English  action  in  the  matter.” 

Dr.  J.  E.  Kittredge,  the  well-known  pastor  and  writer, 
Geneseo,  N.  Y.:  “ A most  remarkable  little  volume.  It  is  so 
clear,  so  concise,  so  complete  a statement  of  the  conduct  of 
the  London  Committee,  and  of  the  whole  case  as  related  to 
yourself,  that  one  can  reach  but  one  conclusion.  The  Com- 
mittee, under  some  fatal  hallucination,  has  made  an  enormous 
blunder.”  * 

Prof.  Charles  Eliot  Norton,  LL.D.,  Harvard  University, 
ends  his  letter  of  good  wall  with  the  hope  “ that  you  may  have 
the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  what  you  have  done  in  the 
service  of  the  Fund  receives  due  recognition.” 

George  Zabriskie,  Esq.,  New  York  City:  “ The  London 
Committee  did  you  a grave  injustice,  which  is  resented  by  the 
American  subscribers.  With  this  feeling  I associate  myself.” 
Edgar  G.  Miller,  Esq.,  Baltimore,  the  antiquarian:  “ I 
have  no  doubt  that  your  book  will  cause  the  English  Com- 
mittee to  regret  its  action.” 


Boston,  March,  1904. 


